UNCORRECTED PROOF
Thompson et al. Translational Psychiatry
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-020-0705-1
T
ranslational Psychiatry
REVIEW ARTICLE Open Access
ENIGMA and global neuroscience: a decade of
large-scale studies of the brain in health and
disease across more than 40 countries
Abstract
This review summarizes the last decade of work by the ENIGMA (Enhancing NeuroImaging Genetics through Meta
Analysis) Consortium, a global alliance of over 1400 scientists across 43 countries, studying the human brain in health
and disease. Building on large-scale genetic studies that discovered the rst robustly replicated genetic loci associated
with brain metrics, ENIGMA has diversied into over 50 working groups (WGs), pooling worldwide data and expertise
to answer fundamental questions in neuroscience, psychiatry, neurology, and genetics. Most ENIGMA WGs focus on
specic psychiatric and neurological conditions, other WGs study normal variation due to sex and gender differences,
or development and aging; still other WGs develop methodological pipelines and tools to facilitate harmonized
analyses of big data (i.e., genetic and epigenetic data, multimodal MRI, and electroencephalography data). These
international efforts have yielded the largest neuroimaging studies to date in schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major
depressive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, substance use disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder, attention-
decit/hyperactivity disorder, autism spectrum disorders, epilepsy, and 22q11.2 deletion syndrome. More recent
ENIGMA WGs have formed to study anxiety disorders, suicidal thoughts and behavior, sleep and insomnia, eating
disorders, irritability, brain injury, antisocial personality and conduct disorder, and dissociative identity disorder. Here,
we summarize the rst decade of ENIGMAs activities and ongoing projects, and describe the successes and challenges
encountered along the way. We highlight the advantages of collaborative large -scale coordinated data analyses for
testing repr oducibility and robustness of ndings, offering the opportunity to identify brain sy stems involved in clinical
syndromes across diverse samples and associated genetic, environmental, demographic, cognitive, and psychosocial
factors.
Introduction
The ENIGMA (Enhancing NeuroImaging Genetics
through
Meta Analysis) Consortium is a collaboration of
more than 1400 scientists from 43 countries studying the
human brain. ENIGMA started 10 years ago, in 2009, with
the initial aim of performing a large-scale neuroimaging
genetic study, and has since diversied into 50 working
groups (WGs), pooling worldwide data, resources and
expertise to answer fundamental questions in neu-
roscience, psychiatry, neurology, and genetics (Fig. 1
shows a world map of participating sites, broken down by
working group). Thirty of the ENIGMA WGs focus on
specic psychiatric and neurologic conditions. Four study
Q1
different aspects of development and aging. Others study
key transdiagnostic constructs, such as irritability, and the
importance of
Q2
evolutionarily interesting genomic regions
in shaping human brain structure and function. Central to
the success of these
Q3
WGs are the efforts of dedicated
methods development groups within ENIGMA. There are
currently 12 WGs that develop and disseminate multi-
scale and big data analysis pipelines to facilitate harmo-
nized analyses using genetic and epigenetic data,
multimodal (anatomical, diffusion, functional) magnetic
Correspondence: Paul M. Thompson (pthomp@usc.edu)
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article.
© The Author(s) 2020
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction
in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if
changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the articles Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If
material is not included in the articles Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain
permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
1234567890():,;
1234567890():,;
1234567890():,;
1234567890():,;
UNCORRECTED PROOF
resonance imaging (MRI) and spectroscopy (MRS) mea-
sures, in combination with genetic and epigenetic data,
and data from electroencephalography (EEG).
Q4
The Consortium has been a formidable force for dis-
covery and innovation in human brain imaging, sup-
porting more than 200 active studies. The disorder-
specic WGs have published the largest neuroimaging
studies to date in schizophrenia (SCZ; total N = 9572;
4474 cases)
1
, bipolar disorder (BD; total N = 6503; 2447
cases)
2
, major depressive disorder (MDD; total N =
10,105; 2148 cases)
3
, post-traumatic stress disorder
(PTSD; total N = 1868; 794 cases)
4
, substance use dis-
orders (SUD; total N = 3240; 2140 cases)
5
, obsessive-
compulsive disorder (OCD; total N = 3665; 1905 cases)
6
,
attention-decit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD; total N =
4180; 2246 cases)
7
, autism spectrum disorder (ASD; total
N = 3222; 1571 cases)
8
, epilepsy ( N = total 3876; 2149
cases)
9
, and 22q11.2 deletion syndrome (22q11DS; total
N = 944; 474 cases)
10
. Key results of these studies are
summarized in Table 1. Building on this work, the focus
of the ENIGMA disorder-specic WGs now goes beyond
traditional diagnostic boundaries. As these rst large-scale
studies are being completed, ENIGMA is beginning to
identify shared and distinct neuroimaging patterns in
brain disorders with known genetic or clinical over-
lap
11,12
, and to delineate the role of transdiagnostic risk
factors (e.g., childhood trauma) and clinical phenomena
(e.g., suicidal thoughts and behaviors). In addition,
ENIGMAs genetic studies are now analyzing imaging and
genetics data from more than 50,000 people to uncover
genetic markers that most robustly associated with brain
structure and function, or imaging derived neurobiologi-
cal traits related to various disease conditions
1316
.
As we detail in this review, the ENIGMA Consortium
has made multiple, seminal contributions to neuroscience
and psychiatry, including (a) characterization of robust
neuroimaging proles for various brain disorders, (b)
standardization of metrics used to assess clinical symp-
toms of patients across multiple research sites, and (c) use
of dimensional approaches that go beyond the
casecontrol comparisons of individuals with categorical
diagnoses, and further enable the investigation of specic
genetic, and environmental features or neurobiological
markers associated with disorder risk and treatment
Fig. 1 World Map of ENIGMAs Working Groups. The ENIGMA Consortium has grown to include over 1400 participating scientists from over 200
institutions, across 43 countries worldwide. ENIGMA is organized as a set of 50 WGs, studying 26 major brain diseases (see color key). Each group
works closely with the others and consists of worldwide teams of experts in each brain disorder as well as experts in the major methods used to
study each disorder. The diseases studied include major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, substance use disorder, post-traumatic
stress disorder, attention-decit/hyperactivity disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and autism spectrum disorder, and several neurological
disorders, including Parkinsons disease, epilepsy, ataxia, and stroke. In recent years, new WGs were created that grew into worldwide consortia on
epilepsy (Whelan
9
), eating disorders (King
104
), anxiety disorders (Groenewold
107
), antisocial behavior, and infant neuroimaging.
Thompson et al. Translational Psychiatry Page 2 of 26
UNCORRECTED PROOF
Table 1 A Selection of key ndings from ENIGMAs Working Groups, along with key papers and current sample sizes.
Q5
Working group Number of datasets Total N (patient N) Age range
(in years)
Relevant publications Main ndings
Clinical
22Q11DS 14 863 (533) 656 Villalon-Reina, Mol
Psychiatr, 2019; Sun
10
Widespread reductions in diffusivity, pronounced in
regions with major cortico-cortical and cortico-thalamic
bers; thicker cortical gray matter overall, but focal
thickness reduction in temporal and cingulate cortex;
cortical surface area showed pervasive reductions; lower
cortical surface area in individuals with larger
microdeletion; 22q-related psychosis associated with
lower cortical thickness and signicantly overlapped with
ndings from ENIGMA-SCZ group.
Addiction/SUDs 118 18,823 (6,592) 768 Mackey
5
; Conrod
86
;
Mackey
84
Common neural substrate shared in dependence;
differential patterns of regional volume as biomarkers of
dependence on alcohol and nicotine; lower volume or
thickness observed, with greatest effects associated with
alcohol use disorder; insula and medial orbitofrontal
cortex affected, regardless of dependence.
ADHD 37 4180 (2246) 463 Hoogman
7
; Klein
47
; Zhang-
James
94
; Hess
92
;
Hoogman
91
Reduction in bilateral amygdala, striatal, and hippocampal
volumes in the ADHD population, especially in children;
lower cortical surface area values found in children with
ADHD, but not in adolescents or adults; lower surface area
associated with ADHD symptoms in the general
population in childhood; genetic association studies
suggest that genes involved in neurite outgrowth play a
role in ndings of reduced volume in ADHD; gene-
expression studies imply that structural brain alterations in
ADHD can also be explained in part by the differential
vulnerability of these regions to mechanisms mediating
apoptosis, oxidative stress, and autophagy.
ASD 54 3583 (1774) 264 Postema
97
; van Rooij
8
Altered morphometry in the cognitive and affective parts
of the striatum, frontal cortex and temporal cortex in ASD.
BD 44 11,100 (3100) 886 Favre
69
; Nunes
23
; Hibar,
Mol Psychiatr, 2017; Hibar
68
Volumetric reductions in hippocampus and thalamus and
enlarged lateral ventricles in patients; thinner cortical gray
matter in bilateral frontal, temporal and parietal regions;
strongest effects on left pars opercularis, fusiform gyrus
and rostral middle frontal cortex in BD.
Eating Disorders 28 anorexia nervosa (AN); 12
bulimia nervosa (BN)
2531 (897 AN; 307 BN) 1050 AN;
1246 BN
Walton
48
Signs of inverse concordance between greater thalamus
volume and risk for anorexia nervosa (AN); variation in
gene DRD2 signicantly associated with AN only after
conditioning on its association with caudate volume;
genetic variant linked to LRRC4C reached signicance
after conditioning on hippocampal volume.
Epilepsy 24 3876 (2149) 1855 Whelan
9
Patients with IGE showed volume reductions in the right
thalamus and lower thickness in the bilateral precentral
gyri; both MTLE subgroups showed volume reductions in
the ipsilateral hippocampus, and lower thickness in
extrahippocampal cortical regions, including the
precentral and paracentral gyri; lower subcortical volume
and cortical thickness were associated with a longer
duration of epilepsy in the all-epilepsies and right MTLE
groups.
HIV 12 1044 (all patients) 2281 Nir
124
; Nir, MICCAI
201
;
Fouche, OHBM, 2015; Nir,
CNS, 2015
In the full group, subcortical volume associations
implicated the limbic system: lower current CD4+ counts
were associated with smaller hippocampal and thalamic
volumes; a detectable viral load was associated with
smaller hippocampal and amygdala volumes; limbic
effects were largely driven by participants on cART; in
subset of participants not on cART, smaller putamen
volumes were associated with lower CD4+ count.
MDD 38 14,249 (4379) 1089 van Velzen
67
; Tozzi
75
;
Han
72
; Frodl
74
; Renteria
2017; Schmaal
3
; Schmaal
70
;
Ho
137
Signicantly lower hippocampal volumes; thinner
orbitofrontal cortex, anterior and posterior cingulate,
insula and temporal lobes cortex in adult MDD patients;
lower total surface area and regional reductions in frontal
regions and primary and higher-order visual,
somatosensory and motor areas in adoloescent MDD
patients; greater exposure to childhood adversity
associated with smaller caudate volumes in females,
independent of MDD; patients reporting suicidal plans or
attempts showed a smaller ICV volume compared to
controls.
OCD 38 3665 (1905) 565 Boedhoe, Front
Neuroinform, 2019; Hibar
45
;
Boedhoe
6
; Boedhoe
88
Subcortical abnormalities in pediatric and adult patients;
pallidum (bigger) and hippocampus (smaller) key in
adults, and thalamus (bigger) key in (unmedicated)
pediatric group; parietal cortex consistently implicated
both in children and adults; more widespread cortical
thickness abnormalities in medicated adults, and more
pronounced surface area decits (mainly in frontal
regions) in medicated pediatric OCD patients.
PTSD 16 3118 (1288) 1785 Dennis
76
; Salminen
80
;
Logue
4
;OLeary
78
;
Saemann, OHBM, 2018
Signicantly smaller hippocampi, on average, in
individuals with current PTSD compared with trauma-
exposed control subjects, and smaller amygdalae.
Thompson et al. Translational Psychiatry Page 3 of 26
UNCORRECTED PROOF
outcome. The large scale and inclusivity of these ana-
lysesin terms of populatio ns, sample sizes, numbers of
coordinating centers, a nd diversity of i maging and
genetic datahas been instrumental f or demo nstrating
robust associations between clinical factors and brain
alterations, and for stratifying patients with the same
diagnosis according to differential treatment out-
comes
10,17
. Thus, a valuable aspect of the existing
ENIGMA studies is the ability to identify the most
robust patt ern of non-invas ively measured neurobiolo-
gical features involved in clinical syndromes across
multiple samples that are more representative of the
global population. This also results in robust effect size
estimates, without the confounds of literature-based
meta-analyses based on published data with possible
publication bias (as noted in Kong et a l., in prep )
18
.
These data also provide a unique opportunity to assess
important sources of disease heterogeneity, including
key genetic, environmental, demographic, and psycho-
social factors. Here, we provide a synopsis of the rst
decade of ENIGMAs activities and highlight the suc-
cesses and challenges encountered along the way.
Table 1 continued
Working group Number of datasets Total N (patient N) Age range
(in years)
Relevant publications Main ndings
Schizophrenia 39 9572 (4474) 1877 Guadalupe, 2019 (in press);
Holleran
57
; van Erp
1
;
Kelly
56
; Walton
62
; Walton
63
;
Kochunov
66
; van Erp, Mol
Psychiatr, 2015
Positive symptom severity was negatively related to
bilateral STG thickness; widespread thinner cortex and
smaller surface area, largest effect sizes in frontal and
temporal lobe regions; smaller hippocampus, amygdala,
thalamus, accumbens and intracranial volumes; larger
pallidum and lateral ventricle volumes; widespread
reductions in FA, esp. in anterior corona radiata and
corpus callosum; higher mean and radial diffusivity; left
MOFC thickness signicantly associated with negative
symptom severity; link between prefrontal thinning and
negative symptom severity in schizophrenia.
CNV 37 16,889 (24 16p11.2 distal and 125
15q11.2 CNV carriers)
390 van der Meer
100
; Sonderby,
Mol Psychiatr
53
16p11.2 distal CNV: Negative dose-response associations
with copy number on intracranial volume and regional
caudate, pallidum and putamen volumes. 15q11.2 CNV:
Decrease in accumbens and cortical surface area in
deletion carriers and negative dose response on cortical
thickness.
Non-clinical
EEG 5 8425 573 Smit
40
Identied several novel genetic variants associated with
oscillatory brain activity; replicated and advanced
understanding of previously known genes associated with
psychopathology (i.e., schizophrenia and alcohol use
disorders); these psychopathological liability genes affect
brain functioning, linking the genes expression to specic
cortical/subcortical brain regions.
GWAS 34 22,456 391 Satizabal
14
; Grasby
13
; Hibar,
Nature Commun, 2017;
Adams, Nature Neurosci,
2016; Hibar
25
Over 200 genetic loci where common variation is
associated with cortical thickness or surface area; over 40
common genetic variants associated with subcortical
volumes.
Laterality 99 17,141 390 de Kovel
71
; Kong
90
(in
press); Postema
97
; Kong
153
;
Guadalupe, BIB, 2017
Average patterns of left-right anatomical asymmetry of
the healthy brain were mapped, as regards cortical
regional surface areas, thicknesses, and subcortical
volumes; fronto-occipital gradient in cortical thickness
asymmetry was found, with frontal regions generally
thicker on the left, and occipital regions on the right;
asymmetries of various structural measures were
signicantly heritable, indicating genetic effects that differ
between the two sides; age, sex and intracranial volume
affected some asymmetries, but handedness did not;
disorder case control analyses revealed subtle reductions
of regional cortical thickness asymmetries in ASD, as well
as altered orbitofrontal surface area asymmetry; little
evidence for altered anatomical asymmetry was found in
MDD; pediatric patients with OCD showed evidence for
altered asymmetry of the thalamus and pallidum.
Lifespan 91 14,904 healthy individuals 292 Dima et al., 2015; Frangou
et al., 2019 (in prep)
Thickness in almost all cortical regions decreased
prominently in the rst two to three decades of life, with
an attenuated or plateaued slope afterwards; exceptions
to this pattern were entorhinal and temporopolar cortices
whose thickness showed an attenuated inverse U-shaped
relation with age, and anterior cingulate cortex, which
showed a U-shaped association with age; age at peak
cortical thickness was 67 years for most brain regions.
Plasticity 36 10,199 (2242) 697 Brouwer
38
; Brouwer
39
Heritability estimates of change rates were generally
higher in adults than in children suggesting an increasing
inuence of genetic factors explaining individual
differences in brain structural changes with age; for some
structures, the genetic factors inuencing change were
different from those inuencing the volume itself,
suggesting the existence of genetic variants specic for
brain plasticity.
Thompson et al. Translational Psychiatry Page 4 of 26
UNCORRECTED PROOF
History
ENIGMA was launched in December 2009 to help
break the logjam in genetic studies of the brain. At the
time, most neuroimaging genetics studies were assessing
historically candidate genetic variations, mostly in very
small samples of a few tens to hundreds of participants
(e.g., COMT , 5-HTTLPR, BDNF). These studies typically
reported candidate gene effects that did not replicate
when tested in independent cohorts
1921
. It became
apparent that very large numbers of genetic loci con-
tributed to variation in complex neurological or psychia-
tric traits, including imaging-derived brain measures
each with a very small effect sizeand only a few genetic
loci accounted for more than 1% of the variance in any
complex brain condition or measure
22
. Thus, scientists
began to recognize the need to pool multiple datasets
worldwide to perform better-powered studies of these
traits. In response, the ENIGMA Consortiums initial plan
was to merge two big data sourcesneuroimaging and
geneticswith the aim of discovering the impact of
genetic factors on brain systems, to determine whether
these genetic factors underlie manifestation of disorders
within the brain, and to identify diagnostic and prognostic
neuroimaging biomarkers. A further goal was to improve
on previous literature-based meta-analyses by using har-
monized processing and analysis protocols on an unpre-
cedented scale. This was the impetus that launched
ENIGMAs early studies.
In 2014, the NIH Big Data to Knowledge (BD2K) pro-
gram awarded a consortium grant to ENIGMA with seed
funding for WGs on nine disorders: SCZ, BD, MDD,
OCD, ADHD, ASD, SUD, 22q11DS, and the effects of the
human immunodeciency virus (HIV) on the brain. This
support led to the largest neuroimaging studies for the
nine targeted disorders, with results reported in over 50
manuscripts. These initial successes provided the driving
force to establish an additional 21 disease WGs (see
Working Group chart, Fig. 2).
Following the model established by the Psychiatric
Genomics Consortium (PGC), which emphasized har-
monization of genomic analysis protocols across sites, the
ENIGMA Consortium created harmonized protocols to
analyze brain structure and function, along with genetic,
and clinical data across its WGs. Instead of centralizing
data, ENIGMA opted to work as a distributed con-
sortium, asking groups to run standardized protocols
themselves, rather than the approach used in the PGC,
where data are centralized. At the time, ENIGMA design
was important for the rapid acceptance of the consortium
in the eld, as it made contribution very easy; further, the
memoranda of understanding provided the basic guide-
lines for the trusted collaborative networks to develop. In
the meantime with views on data sharing having chan-
ged quite considerablymany ENIGMA WGs now also
share (derived) individual data, allowing for more in-
depth analyses.
In ENIGMAs genetic studies, many participating cen-
ters use different genotyping chips, so data were rst
imputed to common genomic references (such as the
Fig. 2 ENIGMAs Working Group Flowchart. ENIGMAs working
groups are divided into technical groups that work on testing
harmonized methods, and clinical groups that study different disorders
and conditions across psychiatry and neurology, as well as some
behaviors (e.g., schizotypy and antisocial behaviors). The use of
harmonized analysis methods across all the working groups has enabled
cross-disorder comparisons (e.g., in the affective/psychosis spectrum of
depression to bipolar disorder to schizophrenia), and transdiagnostic
analyses of risk factors such as childhood trauma across a number of
disorders (such as major depressive disorder (MDD) and post-traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD)). Several working groups, such as brain trauma and
anxiety, consist of several subgroups examining subtypes (e.g., panic
disorder or social anxiety), and allow analyses of overlap and differences
(e.g., between military and civilian brain trauma).
Thompson et al. Translational Psychiatry Page 5 of 26
UNCORRECTED PROOF
1000 Genomes reference panel), allowing each partici-
pating site to perform the same association tests between
brain measures and genetic variation at over 10 million
loci across the genome. Furthermore, the ENIGMA
Consortium standardized procedures for the extraction of
brain metrics (such as cortical thickness, cortical surface
area, and subcortical volume) from raw neuroimaging
data, implemented consensus protocols for data quality
control and outlier handling, and pioneered new
meta-analytic methods for the analysis of aggregated
statistical information (http://enigma.ini.usc.edu/
protocols/). ENIGMAs meta-analyses estimated the size
and precision of the effects after pooling evidence from
multiple cohorts, and they also ranked the neuroimaging
effect sizes of ndings emerging from casecontrol
comparisons, thereby setting the stage for deeper, sec-
ondary analyses aiming to explore potential moderators of
psychiatric and neurological disease. More recently, many
ENIGMA groups have moved beyond cohort level meta-
analyses to pooled, or mega-analyses (Using brain
Q6
volu-
metric data from ENIGMAs OCD, ADHD, and ASD
working groups, Boedhoe et al.
12
compared meta-analysis
to mega-analyses that model site or cohort effects as
random effects, showing broad agreement. Mega-analyses
allow more sophisticated statistical adjustments as they
pool more information across cohorts; meta-analyses tend
to be more efcient when ethical, legal or logistic con-
straints govern or restrict individual-level data transfer
(e.g., genome-wide genetic data).), where anonymized and
unidentiable individual-level data are aggregated in a
central location, allowing more exible statistical designs,
such as machine learning analyses
23
, reliable estimation of
interaction effects, and examination of polygenic risk
scores. The type and amount of data transferred for each
analysis is chosen pragmatically for each study. Dis-
tributed analyses promote scientic engagement from
many groups worldwide and take advantage of distributed
computing resources that scale up as the network grows;
here the data transferred is mainly aggregate measures
such as quality control metrics and the statistical metrics
derived from agreed-upon analytical tests. On the other
hand, the centralized analyses are preferable when a
variable of interest is sparsely distributed across sites, (e.g.,
individuals with 22q11DS exhibiting psychotic symptoms)
or when a specic method is being developed, and com-
putational power or expertise is available at only a few
sites; here the data transferred usually include uni-
dentiable derived imaging metrics (e.g., hippocampal
volume) and demographic or clinical information (age at
scan, sex, diagnostic status, etc.); however, this form of
analysis may limit participation and requires individual
data transfer agreements with participating sites. We note,
because of these required agreements with potentially
clinically sensitive patient information, and the project-
specic design of the centralized approaches, ENIGMA
does not curate a database for repeated or open access,
and each cohort PI approves of each project for which
they contribute data.
ENIGMAs genetic studies
Uncovering the genetic basis of brain morphometric
variation
The rst demonstration of the value of the ENIGMA
approach was the identication of genetic loci associated
with variation in subcortical volumes including the cau-
date, putamen, and hippocampus (see Fig. 3)
14,24,25
. These
genome-wide association studies (GWAS) yielded intri-
guing new leads regarding the genetic architecture of the
human brain that were only possible because ENIGMA
afforded increased power to detect subtle effects. More
recently, ENIGMA identied more than 200 individual
loci that signicantly contribute to variation in brain
measures, with p-values reaching 10
180
; each single locus
accounted for only 0.11% of phenotypic variance, but up
to 20% of the variance in aggregate. For this effort
ENIGMA had partnered with the CHARGE Consortium
and UK Biobank on a series of studies of 70 cortical
measures, including regional cortical thickness and sur-
face area
13
. These discoveries resulted in an annotated
atlas of common genetic variants that contribute to
shaping the human cerebral cortex. Of particular interest,
we found that genetic loci affecting brain morphology
show enrichment for developmentally regulated genes
13
and human-specic regulatory elements
26,27
. Ongoing
efforts are beginning to map these genetic effects at a
ner-grained spatial resolution using shape analysis, sur-
face- and voxel-based analyses
2831
. Moving beyond the
mass univariate methods, which analyze each brain
measure separately, ENIGMA has begun to use multi-
variate methods to meet the challenge of quantifying the
complex relationships between brain networksor con-
nectomes’—and the genome
3234
.
Current ENIGMA sample sizes (which now exceed
50,000) are sufciently large to identify genetic associa-
tions at a pace comparable to that of GWAS for other
phenotypes. In a recent analysis, Holland
35
contrasted
rates of discovery of genetic loci by ENIGMA and the
PGC and noted the distribution of effect sizes for some
brain measures (e.g., putamen volume) may indeed be
enriched for slightly larger effects compared to behavioral
traits (see also Le and Stein
36
and Franke et al.
37
). Still, a
central understanding gained from the ENIGMA asso-
ciation screens is that neuroimaging genetics studiesjust
like analyses of behavioral measures, require tens (perhaps
hundreds) of thousands of participants to obtain robust
and reproducible effects of common polymorphisms.
Most individual effect sizes are very small explaining
<0.2% of variance, as for other complex human traits.
Thompson et al. Translational Psychiatry Page 6 of 26
UNCORRECTED PROOF
GWAS of multiple imaging measures may offer a way to
parcellate the brain into clusters or sectors with over-
lapping genetic drivers, perhaps boosting the power to
discover genetic loci, by aggregating regions based on
their genetic correlation.
Uncovering the genetic basis of brain change
The quest to discover genetic loci that modulate brain
development and aging led to the launch of the ENIGMA-
Plasticity WG
38
, which uses longitudinal brain imaging
data from 36 cohorts worldwide to estimate rates of brain
growth or atrophy, and performs GWAS to nd genetic
markers that may inuence these rates of change. The
ENIGMA-Plasticity WG has established the heritability of
brain changes over time and has shown that distinct
genetic factors inuence regional brain volumes and their
rate of change, implying the existence of genetic variants
specically associated with change
39
. The WG is further
investigating how closely developmental and aging-related
genes overlap, and how they overlap with genetic loci that
Fig. 3 Genetic Inuences on brain structure: effects of common and rare genetic variants. ENIGMAs large-scale genetic analyses study the
effects of both common and rare genetic variants on brain measures. a A series of progressively larger genome-wide association studies have
revealed over 45 genetic loci associated with subcortical structure volumes (Hibar
25
, Satizabal
14
) and over 200 genetic loci associated with cortical
thickness and surface area Grasby
13
. The Manhattan plots here (adapted from Hibar
25
, show the genome (on the x-axis) and the evidence for
association (as a logarithm of the p-value, on the y-axis) for each common genetic variant (or SNP) with the volume of each brain structure shown.
b Genetics of Hippocampal Volume. A subsequent genome-wide association study (GWAS) of 33,536 individuals discovered six independent loci
signicantly associated with hippocampal volume, four of them novel. Of the novel loci, two lie within key genes involved in neuronal migration and
microtubule assembly (ASTN2 and MAST4) (Hibar 2017). An interactive browser, ENIGMA-Vishttp://enigma-brain.org/enigmaviscan be used to
navigate ENIGMAs genomic data. Initially started as a web page to plot ENIGMA summary statistics data for a specic genomic region, ENIGMA-Vis
grew over the years into a portal with tools to query, visualize, and navigate the effects, and relate them to other GWAS (Shatokhina
197
). c In
complementary work on rare variants by the ENIGMA-CNV Working Group, Sønderby and colleagues (2018) examined effects of the 16p11.2 distal
CNV that predisposes to psychiatric conditions including autism spectrum disorder and schizophrenia. ENIGMA (including the 16p11.2 European
Consortium) and deCODE datasets were combined to discover negative dose-response associations with copy number on intracranial volume and
regional caudate, pallidum and putamen volumessuggesting a neuropathological pattern that may underlie the neurodevelopmental syndromes.
The agreement across datasets is apparent in the Forest plots for each brain region. [Data adapted, with permission from the authors and publishers].
Thompson et al. Translational Psychiatry Page 7 of 26
UNCORRECTED PROOF
are associated with risk for development of psychiatric
and neurological disease throughout life. Overall, the high
rate of discovery driven by ENIGMA is offering initial
glimpses of the overlap among genetic drivers of brain
change throughout life with specic markers of brain
structure and function.
Uncovering the genetic basis of brain functional variation
The ENIGMA Consortium has also carried out genetic
association studies of EEG-derived phenotypes. The rst
study
40
of the EEG WG performed the largest GWAS to
date of oscillatory power across a range of frequencies
(delta 13.75 Hz, theta 47.75 Hz, alpha 812.75 Hz, and
beta 1330 Hz) in 8425 healthy subjects. They identied
several novel genetic variants associated with alpha
oscillatory brain activity that were previously linked to
psychiatric disorders.
Characterizing the association between brain morphology
and disease-risk genes
In an early ENIGMA study, minimal overlap was detected
between schizophrenia-relate d and brain-related genetic
loci
37
. These questions were revisited with Bayesian mod-
els
41
and LD-score regression methods
42
which identied
stronger overlap between genetic loci involved in cortical
structure and loci implicated in insomnia, major depression,
Parkinsons disease, and general cognitive ability or IQ
13
.
Despite initial negative results
37
,ENIGMAsgrowingsam-
ple size led to more powerful results, allowing for the recent
successes in the discovery of brain-related genetic variants
that also affect risk for schizophrenia
43,44
,OCD
45
,anxiety
disorders
46
,PTSD
46
,ADHD
47
,anorexianervosa
48
, Tourette
syndrome
49
,andinsomnia
13
.
As the sample size of brain scans in the ENIGMA Con-
sortium increa sed beyond 50,000 MRI scans, it became
possible to discover further genetic loci associated with
multiple brain traits implicated in brain disorders. A recent
example is an ENIGMA-CHARGE GWAS of white matter
(WM) hyperintensities, a sign of vascular brain disease, by
Mather et al. (in prep), which found heterogeneous effects
for variants associated with lesions near the ventricles ver-
sus lesions elsewhere in the brain. An innovative feature of
this analysis was the use of anatomical clustering of traits to
yield more powerful brain GWAS results. Anatomical or
genetic clustering is yet another methodological improve-
ment implemented by ENIGMA, that can be used widely to
enhance detection of genetic associations in multiple brain
disorders (see Lorenzi, Couvy-Duchesne for other multi-
variate imaging GWAS approaches
50,51
).
Uncovering the epigenetic basis of brain morphometric
variation
Inspired by these successes, ENIGMA widened the
scope of its WGs to embrace the study of epigenetic
variations. ENIGMAs Epigenetics group has already
identied two sites in the genome where methylation
relates to hippocampal volume (N = 3337)
52
. Ongoing
studies focus on brain measures sensitive to epigenetic
age, an index of biological as opposed to chronological
aging, in both health and disease.
From common nucleotide variations to rare copy number
variants (CNV)
The ENIGMA-CNV WG was launched to study the
effects of CNVs, relatively rare genetic variants predis-
posing individuals to various neuropsychiatric disorders.
The ENIGMA collaborative approach is ideal for studying
low-frequency variants, as such efforts require large
samples that are usually beyond the scope of a single
study. Their rst reports were on the 16p11.2 distal
53
and
15q11.295 CNVs (Fig. 3) and additional studies on other
CNVs are underway.
ENIGMA disorder-based neuroimaging studies
ENIGMA-schizophrenia
The Schizophrenia WG was formed in 2012, and has
since analyzed data from 39 cohorts worldwide and has
identied casecontrol differences in brain morpho-
metry
1,54,55
and WM microstructure
56,57
, on an unpre-
cedented scale. ENIGMA-Schizophrenia was the rst
working group to publish large-scale analyses of disease,
in two seminal papers on casecontrol differences in
brain morphometry based on the largest samples to date.
Van Erp and ENIGMA colleagues
54
rst reported that
patients with SCZ (N = 2028 patients) had smaller hip-
pocampus (Cohens d = 0.46), amygdala (d = 0.31),
thalamus (d = 0.31), nucleus accumbens (d = 0.25),
total intracranial volumes (d = 0.12), and larger palli-
dum (d = 0.21) and lateral ventricle volumes (d = 0.37)
compared to healthy controls (N = 2540). In a subsequent
study, the team1 expanded their sample to include 4474
individuals with SCZ and 5,098 controls to study cortical
structures. Compared to healthy controls, patients with
SCZ had globally thinner cortices (left/right hemisphere:
d = 0.53/0.52) and smaller overall cortical surface area
(left/right hemisphere: d = 0.25/0.25), with greatest
effect sizes in frontal and temporal regions.
Figures 4 and 5 present these cortical and subcortical
ndings alongside data from several other disorders. It is
notable that these ndings from ENIGMA
13,54
were
replicated in a large independent study by the Japanese
COCORO Consortium
58
, and a recent Norwegian study
of 16 cohorts by Alnæs et al.
59
. The convergence of all
three studies, reviewed in Kochunov et al.
60
, represents a
new level of rigor and reproducibility in a eld where the
existence of morphometric correlates of schizophrenia
was once hotly debated
61
.
Thompson et al. Translational Psychiatry Page 8 of 26
UNCORRECTED PROOF
Brain alterations were also discovered in relation to
clinical features of the disease. In follow-up analyses,
Walton et al. found that positive symptom severity was
negatively related to the thickness of the superior tem-
poral gyrus bilaterally
62
, while the severity of negative
symptoms was negatively related to the cortical thickness
of several prefrontal regions and particularly the left
medial orbitofrontal cortex (MOFC)
63
.
At this point it is worth considering the added value of
other data modalities, such as diffusion MRI, which offers
complementary information on microstructural abnorm-
alities, especially in the WM, that are not detectable on
standard anatomical MRI. ENIGMAs Diffusion MRI
working group, launched in 2012 with protocols for dif-
fusion tensor imaging (DTI), published a series of papers
on the heritability and reproducibility of DTI measures
derived with a protocol based on tract-based spatial sta-
tistics
6466
. Over ten of ENIGMAs working groups have
since used this protocol to rank effect sizes for DTI
metrics across key WM tracts.
Kelly et al. reported on widespread WM abnormalities
in schizophrenia, pooling data from 2359 healthy controls
and 1963 patients with SCZ from 29 independent inter-
national studies
56
. Signicant reductions in fractional
anisotropy (FA) in patients with SCZ were widespread
across major WM fasciculi. While effect sizes varied by
tract and included signicant reductions in the anterior
corona radiata (d = 0.40) and corpus callosum (d = 0.39,
specically its body (d = 0.39) and genu (d = 0.37)),
effects were observed throughout the brain, with peak
reductions observed for the entire WM skeleton (d =
0.42). Figure 6 shows these ndings alongside data from
two other disorders for which ENIGMA published large-
scale DTI analyses, MDD
67
, and 22q11DS
17
.
ENIGMA-BD
Formed shortly after the Schizophrenia WG, and fol-
lowing similar protocols, the ENIGMAs BD WG reported
on cortical thickness and surface area measures using
anatomical MRI data from 1837 adults with BD and 2582
healthy controls, from 28 international groups
68
. BD was
associated with reduced cortical thickness in bilateral
frontal, temporal and parietal regions, and particularly in
the left pars opercularis (d = 0.29), the left fusiform
Fig. 4 ENIGMAs large-scale studies of nine brain disorders. Cortical gray matter thickness abnormalities as Cohens d, are mapped for nine
different disorders, for which worldwide data were analyzed with the same harmonized methods. Although the cohorts included in the studies
differed, as did the scanning sites and age ranges studied, some common and distinct patterns are apparent. Cortical maps for major depressive
disorder (MDD), bipolar disorder (BD) and schizophrenia show gradually more extensive proles of decits. Across all disorders, the less prevalent
disorders tend to show greater effects in the brain: the relatively subtle pattern of hippocampal-limbic decits in MDD broadens to include frontal
decits in bipolar disorder (consistent with frontal lobe dysfunction and impaired self-control). In schizophrenia, decits widen to include almost the
entire cortexonly the primary visual cortex (specically the calcarine cortex) failed to show thickness alterations in patients, after meta-analysis.
Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and the 22q deletion syndrome (22q11DS)a risk condition for ASDare associated with hypertrophy in frontal
brain regions, while patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and alcohol use disorder tend to show decits in frontal brain regions
involved in self-control and inhibition. More rened analyses are now relating symptom domains to these and other brain metrics, within and across
these and other disorders.
Thompson et al. Translational Psychiatry Page 9 of 26
UNCORRECTED PROOF
gyrus (d = 0.29), and left rostral middle frontal cortex
(d = 0.28). Interestingly, lithium use was associated with
thicker cortex in several areas. The WG also examined
casecontrol differences in subcortical volumes in 1710
patients with BD and 2594 healthy controls; they found
that BD was associated with reductions in the volume of
the hippocampus (d = 0.23) and the thalamus (d =
0.15), and with enlarged lateral ventricular volume (d =
0.26). A follow-up study, showed that when applied to
regional cortical thickness, surface area, and subcortical
volumes, machine learning methods (based on support
vector machines) differentiated BD participants from
controls with above chance accuracy even in a large and
heterogeneous sample of 3020 participants from 13
ENIGMA cohorts worldwide
23
. Aggregate analyses of
individual subject data yielded better performance than
meta-analysis of site-level results. Age and exposure to
anticonvulsants were associated with greater odds of
correct classication. Although short of the 80% clinically
relevant threshold, the 65.2% accuracy (0.71 ROC-AUC)
is promising, as the study focused on a difcult to diag-
nose, highly heterogeneous condition and used only
Fig. 5 Subcortical abnormalities in schizophrenia, bipolar
disorder, major depressive disorder, and ADHD. a ENIGMAs
publications of the three largest neuroimaging papers on
schizophrenia (SCZ), bipolar disorder (BD), and major depressive
disorder (MDD), suggested widespread cross-disorder differences in
effects (van Erp 2015, Hibar
68
, Schmaal 2015). By processing 21,199
peoples brain MRI scans consistently, we found greater brain
structural abnormalities in SCZ and BD versus MDD, and a very
different pattern in attention-decit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD;
Hoogman
7
). Subcortically, all three disorders involve hippocampal
volume decitsgreatest in SCZ, least in MDD, and intermediate in
BD. As a slightly simplied rule of thumb, the hippocampus,
ventricles, thalamus, amygdala and nucleus accumbens show volume
reductions in MDD that are around half the magnitude of those seen
in BD, which in turn are about half the magnitude of those seen in
SCZ. The basal ganglia are an exception to this ruleperhaps because
some antipsychotic treatments have hypertrophic effects on the basal
ganglia, leading to volume excesses in medicated patients. In ADHD,
however, the amygdala, caudate and putamen, and nucleus
accumbens all show decits, as does ICV (ventricular data is not
included here for ADHD, as it was not measured in the ADHD study).
A web portal, the ENIGMA Viewer, provides access to these summary
statistics from ENIGMAs published studies of psychiatric and
neurological disorders (http://enigma-viewer.org/About_the_projects.
html; Zhang
198
). b Independent work by the Japanese Consortium,
COCORO, found a very similar set of effect sizes for group differences
in subcortical volumes between schizophrenia patients and matched
controls.
Fig. 6 White matter microstructure in schizophrenia, major
depressive disorder, and 22q11.2 deletion syndrome. a White
matter microstructural abnormalities are shown, by tract, based on the
largest-ever diffusion MRI studies of these three disorders. In
schizophrenia (SCZ), fractional anisotropy, a measure of white matter
microstructure, is lower in almost all individual regions, and in the full
skeleton. In major depressive disorder (MDD), a weak pattern of effects
is observed, again with MDD patients showing on average lower FA
across the full white matter skeleton, when compared to controls. In
comparisons between 22q11.2 deletion syndrome (22q11DS) and
matched controls, by contrast, the average FA along the full white
matter skeleton does not show systematic differences; instead, while
some regions do show on average lower FA in affected individuals
compared with controls, several white matter regions show higher FA.
b Relative to appropriately matched groups of healthy controls (HC),
group differences in fractional anisotropy are shown for ENIGMAs
studies of SCZ, MDD (both in adults), and 22q11.2 deletion syndrome.
[Data adapted, with permission of the authors and publishers, from
Kelly
56
, van Velzen
67
, and Villalon (2019); a key to the tract names
appears in the original papers; some tracts (i.e. the hippocampal
portion of the cingulum) were omitted from the 22q11DS analysis as
they were not consistently in the eld of view for some cohorts of the
working group].
Thompson et al. Translational Psychiatry Page 10 of 26
UNCORRECTED PROOF
engineered features, not raw brain imaging data. ENIG-
MAs multi-site design may also offer a more realistic
assessment of real-world accuracy, by repeatedly leaving
out different sites data for cross-validation. Future mul-
tisite brain-imaging machine learning studies will begin to
move towards sharing of more detailed individual subject
data, not only a selection of discrete features or site-level
results derived from a single modality; unsupervised
machine learning techniques may offer potential to better
understand the heterogeneity in the disorder. The
ENIGMA-BD DTI WG conducted both a mega- and
meta-analysis of 3,033
Q7
subjects (1482 BD and 1551 con-
trols)
69
. Both analyses found lower FA in patients with BD
compared with healthy controls in most brain regions,
with the highest effect sizes in the corpus callosum and
cingulum.
ENIGMA-MDD
Brain morphometric analyses conducted by the
ENIGMA-MDD WG were based on MRI data from 1728
patients with MDD and 7199 controls for subcortical
volumes
70
and from 2148 patients with MDD and 7957
controls for cortical measures
3
. These studies found that
patients with MDD had lower hippocampal volumes (d =
0.14), an effect driven by patients with recurrent illness
(d = 0.17) and by patients with an adolescent (21
years) age of onset (d = 0.20). First-episode patients
showed no subcortical volume differences compared to
controls. Adult patients (>21 years) had reduced cortical
thickness in bilateral orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), anterior
and posterior cingulate cortex, insula, and temporal lobe
regions (ds: 0.10 to 0.14). In contrast, adolescent
patients showed no differences in cortical thickness but
showed lower total surface area, which seemed to be
especially driven by lower surface area in frontal (medial
OFC and superior frontal gyrus), visual, somatosensory,
and motor areas (d = 0.26 to 0.57). Moreover, these
differences in gray matter morphometry observed in
MDD do not involve abnormal asymmetry, as shown in a
joint study by the Laterality and the MDD WGs involving
2540 MDD individuals and 4230 controls, from 32
datasets
71
.
A follow-up analysis on a subset of these aforemen-
tioned data found that the brain MRIs of adult patients
with MDD (1875 years old) appeared, on average, 1.08
years older than those of controls (d = 0.14)
72
. This brain
age estimate was based on a machine learning algorithm
trained to predict chronological age from morphometric
data from 2188 controls across 19 cohorts and subse-
quently applied to hold-out data from 2126 healthy con-
trols and 2675 people with MDD. The largest brain aging
effects were observed in antidepressant users (+1.4 years;
d = 0.15), currently depressed (+1.5 years; d = 0.18), and
remitted patients (+2.2 years; d = 0.18), compared to
controls. Within ENIGMA-MDD, Opel et al. also studied
the effects of obesity on structural brain metrics of
patients and controls (N = 6420)
73
. Obesity effects were
not different between patients and controls, but there was
a signicant obesity by age interaction in relation to
cortical thickness, with thinner cortices in older obese
individuals. Cortical thickness decits related to obesity
were strongest in the temporal and frontal cortical
regions, and overlapped with patterns observed in several
neuropsychiatric disorders, but exceeded those found in
MDD without regard for BMI in terms of the effect
sizes and range of structures affected. The magnitude of
these effects suggests a need to better understand the
connections between BMI, brain aging and mental health.
Capitalizing on the statistical power of ENIGMA to
examine the role of risk factors, Frodl
74
and Tozzi
75
examined the association between retrospectively assessed
childhood maltreatment (including emotional, physical
and sexual abuse, or emotional and physical neglect), and
brain morphometry in 3036 and 3872 individuals (aged
1389) with and without MDD, respectively. Greater
exposure to childhood maltreatment was associated with
lower cortical thickness of the banks of the superior
temporal sulcus and supramarginal gyrus, and with lower
surface area across the whole brain and in the middle
temporal gyrus. Sex differences were also observed: in
females, greater maltreatment severity was associated with
overall lower gray matter thickness and smaller caudate
volumes, whereas in males, greater maltreatment severity
was associated with lower thickness of the rostral anterior
cingulate cortex.
In addition to these investigations of gray matter in
MDD, a large-scale analysis of WM microstructure with
DTI has also been completed, comparing 1305 adults and
adolescents with MDD to 1602 healthy controls from
20 samples worldwide
67
. In adults with MDD, widespread
lower FA values were found in 16 out of 25 WM tracts of
interest (ds = 0.120.26), with the largest differences in
the corpus callosum and corona radiata. Widespread
increased radial diffusivity (RD) was also observed (ds =
0.120.18) and was driven by patients with recurrent
MDD and an adult-onset of depression.
ENIGMA-PGC post-traumatic stress disorder
In partnership with the PGC, ENIGMA launched a WG
on PTSD that has analyzed neuroimaging and clinical
data from 1868 individuals (including 794 patients with
PTSD) from 16 cohorts. In this rst ENIGMA-PTSD
study, Logue and colleagues found that patients with
current PTSD had smaller hippocampal volumes (d =
0.17) compared to trauma-exposed controls
4
. Child-
hood trauma predicted smaller hippocampal volume (d =
0.17) independent of diagnosis. In a subsequent study,
the WG found that cortical thickness in 3378 individuals
Thompson et al. Translational Psychiatry Page 11 of 26
UNCORRECTED PROOF
(including 1309 patients with PTSD) was lower in PTSD
in the orbitofrontal cortex, cingulate cortex, precuneus,
insula, and lateral parietal cortices. In addition, a DTI
meta-analysis of 3057 individuals (including 1405 patients
with PTSD) from 25 cohorts found alterations in WM
organization in the tapetum, a structure that connects the
left and right hippocampus
76
. Structural covariance net-
work analysis applied to data from 3505 individuals
(including 1344 patients with PTSD), which examined
correlated patterns of cortical thickness and surface area,
found that PTSD is associated with network centrality
features of the insula and visual association areas
77
.To
extend these ndings, ongoing studies are assessing cor-
tical structure
78,79
and hippocampal subelds in PTSD
and MDD
8083
, to better understand the pattern and
regional specicity of hippocampal decits in the two
disorders, and whether these patterns coincide.
ENIGMA-addictions/SUD
The ENIGMA-Addictions/SUDs WG has 33 partici-
pating sites, contributing MRI data from 12,347 indivi-
duals of whom 2277 are adult patients with SUD relating
to one of ve substances (alcohol, nicotine, cocaine,
methamphetamine, or cannabis)
5,84,85
. In these data,
Mackey
5
observed lower cortical thickness/subcortical
volume in cases relative to controls in regions that play
key roles in evaluating reward (MOFC, amygdala), task
monitoring (superior frontal cortex), attention (superior
parietal cortex, posterior cingulate) and perception/reg-
ulation of internal body states (insula). While the most
pervasive casecontrol differences appeared to be related
to alcohol dependence, some effects were observed for
substance dependence generally (e.g., the insula and
MOFC). A support vector machine trained on cortical
thickness and subcortical volume successfully classied
set-aside test sets for both alcohol (ROC-AUC: 0.740.78;
p < 0.0001) and nicotine dependence (ROC-AUC:
0.600.64; p < 0.0001), relative to non-dependent con-
trols
5
. A separate meta-analysis also compared the effect
size of addiction-related brain impairment to that of other
psychiatric disorders: effect sizes of alcohol-related brain
differences in subcortical brain regions were equivalent to
those reported for schizophrenia
86
.
ENIGMA-obsessive-compulsive disorder
The ENIGMAs OCD WG grew out of a previously
established consortium (the OCD Brain Imaging Con-
sortium, or OBIC)
87
, and has published the largest studies
to date of brain structure in adult and pediatric OCD,
using both meta- and mega-analytic approaches
6,88
. The
rst study analyzed MRI scans from 1830 patients diag-
nosed with OCD and 1759 controls across 35 cohorts
from 26 sites worldwide
88
. Unmedicated pediatric OCD
patients demonstrated larger thalamic volumes, while the
pallidum was enlarged in adult OCD patients with disease
onset at childhood. Adult OCD patients also had sig-
nicantly smaller hippocampal volumes (d = 0.13), with
stronger effects in medicated patients with adult-onset
OCD compared to healthy controls (d = 0.29). A cor-
tical study included data from 1905 patients diagnosed
with OCD and 1760 healthy controls across 38 cohorts
from 27 sites worldwide. In adult patients diagnosed with
OCD versus controls, signicantly smaller surface area of
the transverse temporal cortex (d = 0.16) and a thinner
inferior parietal cortex (d = 0.14) were found. Medi-
cated adult patients with OCD also showed thinner cor-
tices throughout the brain (Cohens d effect sizes varied
between 0.10 and 0.26). Pediatric patients with OCD
showed signicantly thinner inferior and superior parietal
cortices (ds = 0.24 to 0.31), but none of the regions
analyzed showed signicant differences in cortical surface
area. However, medicated pediatric patients with OCD
had smaller surface area in frontal regions (ds = 0.27 to
0.33), that may indicate a delayed cortical maturation.
The absence of cortical surface area abnormalities in adult
patients with a childhood onset of OCD could indicate a
normalization of these abnormalitiesa hypothesis that is
now being explored with longitudinal data collection.
To assess whether the anatomical differences could be
used to create a neuroimaging biomarker for OCD, a
machine learning analysis of the cortical and subcortical
data was performed with 2304 OCD patients and 2068
controls. Classication performance across ten different
machine and deep learning approaches was poor. With
site-stratied cross-validation, the ROC-AUC ranged
between 0.57 and 0.62. The performance dropped to
chance level when leave-one-site-out cross-validation was
used, with classication performance between 0.51 and
0.54. This indicates that these anatomical brain features
do not provide a biomarker for OCD. But when patients
were stratied according to whether they had used med-
ication, classication performance improved remarkably.
Medicated OCD patients and controls could then be
distinguished with 0.73, unmedicated OCD and controls
with 0.61, and medicated and unmedicated OCD patients
with 0.86 ROC-AUC. These multivariate results therefore
mirror the univariate results, and highlight that medica-
tion use is associated with large differences in brain
anatomy
89
.
The OCD WG, in conjunction with the Laterality WG,
studied brain asymmetry in OCD using 16 pediatric
datasets (501 patients with OCD and 439 healthy con-
trols), and 30 adult datasets (1777 patients and 1654
controls)
90
. In the pediatric datasets, the largest
casecontrol differences were observed for volume
asymmetry of the thalamus (more leftward in patients
compared to controls; d = 0.19) and the pallidum (less
leftward in patients compared to controls; d = 0.21). No
Thompson et al. Translational Psychiatry Page 12 of 26
UNCORRECTED PROOF
asymmetry differences were found in the adult datasets.
These ndings may reect altered neurodevelopmental
processes in OCD, affecting cortico-striato-thalamo-
cortical circuitry, which is involved in a wide range of
cognitive, motivational and emotional processes.
ENIGMA-attention-decit/hyperactivity disorder
ENIGMAs ADHD WG has analyzed data from up to
2264 participants with ADHD and 1934 controls from up
to 36 sites (age range: 463 years; 66% males)
91
. Volumes
of the nucleus accumbens (d = 0.15), amygdala (d =
0.19), caudate (d = 0.11), hippocampus (d = 0.11),
putamen (d = 0.14), and ICV (d = 0.10) were smaller
in cases relative to controls. Effect sizes were highest in
children. No statistically signicant univariate
casecontrol differences were detected in adults. Volume
differences were found to have similar effect sizes in those
treated with psychostimulant medication and those naïve
to psychostimulants. Bioinformatics analyses suggested
that the selective subcortical brain region vulnerability
was associated with differential expression of oxidative
stress, neurodevelopment and autophagy pathways
92
.
The ENIGMA-ADHD WG was the rst WG in
ENIGMA to perform a detailed investigation of the case/
control effects on the cerebellum. Differential age trajec-
tories were identied for children with ADHD when
compared with typically developing children for the cor-
pus medullare
93
.
In an analysis of the cerebral cortex, lower surface area
values were found, on average, in children with ADHD,
mainly in frontal, cingulate, and temporal regions; the
largest effect was for total surface area (d = 0.21).
Fusiform gyrus and temporal pole cortical thickness were
also lower in children with ADHD. All effects were most
pronounced in early childhood. Neither surface area nor
thickness differences were found in the adolescent or
adult groups
7
, but machine learning analyses supported
the hypothesis that the casecontrol differences observed
in childhood could be detected in adulthood
94
. Impor-
tantly, many of the same surface area features were
associated with subclinical ADHD symptoms in children
from the general population that do not have a clinical
psychiatric diagnosis. Several of the observed brain
alterations fullled many of the criteria of endopheno-
types (An endophenotype is a trait, such as brain struc-
ture or function, related to the biological process of a
disorder; to qualify as an endophenotype, the trait, should
be heritable, co-segregate with an illness, yet be present
even when the disease is not, and be found in non-affected
family members at a higher rate than in the general
population
95,96
), as they were also seen in unaffected
siblings of people with ADHD in a subsample analysis of
the cortical features. The stronger effects in children may
reect a developmental delay, perhaps due in part to
genetic risk factors, given recent ndings of overlap
between the genetic contributions to ADHD and to sub-
cortical volumes
13,47
.
ENIGMA-autism spectrum disorders
The ENIGMA-ASD WG published the largest neuroi-
maging study of autism analyzing data from 1571 parti-
cipants with ASD and 1651 controls, from 49 sites
worldwide (ages 264 years)
8
. Unlike most of the dis-
orders discussed so far, the direction of effects seen in
ASD varied by brain region, and did so across the age span
analyzed. ASD was associated with larger lateral ventricle
and intracranial volumes, greater frontal cortical thickness
and lower temporal cortical thickness (d = 0.21 to 0.20).
Participants with ASD also had, on average, lower sub-
cortical volumes for the pallidum, putamen, amygdala,
and nucleus accumbens. Post hoc fractional polynomial
analyses showed a sharp increase in volumes in the same
regions in childhood, peaking in adolescence and
decreasing again in adulthood. Overall, patients with ASD
showed altered morphometry in the cognitive and affec-
tive associated-regions of the striatum, frontal cortex, and
temporal cortex.
The ASD group worked together with the Laterality
group to produce the largest ever study of brain asym-
metry in ASD, involving 1774 patients and 1809 controls,
from 54 datasets
97
. Generally, subtle but widespread
reductions of cortical thickness asymmetries were present
in patients with ASD compared to controls, as well as
volume asymmetry of the putamen, and surface area
asymmetry of the MOFC (the strongest effect had
Cohens d = 0.16). Altered lateralized neurodevelop-
ment may, therefore, be a feature of ASD, affecting
widespread cortical regions with diverse functions.
Neurogenetic disorders, CNV, and rare
neurodevelopmental conditions
Several neurodevelopmental disorders arise due to the
abnormal duplication or deletion of segments of the
genome. ENIGMA has dedicated WGs studying 22q11DS,
Gauchers disease, and Hepatic Glycogen storage dis-
ease
98,99
, along with a CNV WG meta-analyzing imaging
data from carriers of several other CNVs
53,100
. Here, we
focus on the work of the two most established groups,
that examine carriers of 22q11.2 deletions and
other CNVs.
ENIGMA- 22q11.2 deletion syndrome
22q11DS is associated with a 20-fold increased risk for
psychosis, and an elevated risk for developmental neu-
ropsychiatric disorders such as ASD. 22q11DS provides a
genetics-rst framework to study the brain markers
underlying complex psychiatric phenotypes. The
ENIGMA-22q11DS working group analyzed the largest
Thompson et al. Translational Psychiatry Page 13 of 26
UNCORRECTED PROOF
dataset to date of brain images from patients with
22q11DS from 10 cohorts including 466 individuals with
22q11DS and 374 matched controls. Compared to con-
trols, 22q11DS individuals showed overall thicker cortical
gray matter (left/right hemispheres: Cohens d = 0.61/
0.65), but pervasive reductions in cortical area (left/right
hemispheres: d = 1.01/1.02), with specic anatomic
patterns. Machine learning methods were applied to the
cortical thickness and area measures to achieve a high
accuracy (sensitivity 94.2%; specicity 93.3%) in classifying
22q11DS cases and controls
10
. ENIGMA subcortical
shape analysis pipelines also identied complex structural
differences across many subcortical structures between
individuals with 22q11DS and controls
101
. Analysis of
diffusion MRI from the same subjects (N = 594) revealed
abnormalities in the corpus callosum, superior long-
itudinal fasciculus, and corona radiata
17
. Ongoing work
uses more advanced imaging protocols
17
including
multishell diffusion protocols that allow for the estima-
tion of biophysical compartments in the tissueto test
hypotheses about specic cellular processes and specic
ber tracts that may be especially vulnerable in 22q11DS
(e.g., the corpus callosum), as well as ber tracts that
appear to be relatively spared (e.g., the cortico-fugal
tracts
17
).
ENIGMA-copy number variations
This WG was set up to examine the effect of rare CNVs,
risk factors for a variety of neuropsychiatric disorders, on
brain structure. Due to their low prevalence
102,103
, their
effects on the brain have been hard to establish. Sønderby
and colleagues focused on the 16p11.2 distal CNV that
predisposes to psychiatric conditions including ASD and
schizophrenia. ENIGMA (including the 16p11.2 European
Consortium) and deCODE datasets were combined to
compare subcortical brain volumes of carriers of 15
16p11.2 distal deletion and 18 duplication to 7714 non-
carriers which led to the discovery of negative dose-
response associations with copy number on intracranial
volume and regional accumbens, caudate, pallidum and
putamen volumessuggesting a neuropathological pat-
tern that may underlie the neurodevelopmental syn-
dromes
53
. A further study
100
including the UK Biobank
assessed the association of the 15q11.2 CNV with cogni-
tion and cortical and subcortical morphology in more
than 45,000 individuals from 38 datasets (203 individuals
with a 15q11.2 deletion, 45,247 non-carriers, and 306
duplication carriers). The authors found a clear pattern of
widespread poorer cognitive performance, smaller surface
area and thicker cortices for deletion carriers compared to
non-carriers and duplication carriers, particularly across
the frontal lobe, anterior cingulate and pre/postcentral
gyri. The pattern of results ts well with known molecular
functions of the genes in the 15q11 region and suggests
involvement of these genes in neuronal plasticity and
cortical development. Thus, the results from ENIGMA-
CNV have shown that several CNVs cause abnormal brain
patterns and inform on genetically determined variation
in brain development and their relation to neurodeve-
lopmental disorders. Additional studies on other CNVs
are in progress.
Newly established working groups
In the last two years, seven additional ENIGMA WGs
have formed to study specic disorders and important
transdiagnostic conditions: anxiety disorders, suicidal
thoughts and behavior, sleep and insomnia, eating dis-
orders (including bulimia and anorexia nervosa sub-
groups
104
), irritability, antisocial behavior, and
dissociative identity disorder. The starting point of the
anxiety group was an international voxel-based morpho-
metry mega-analysis on social anxiety disorder
105
, sup-
ported by ndings demonstrating that structural brain
alterations related to social anxiety run in families
106
.At
present, the anxiety WG has four subgroups including
over 5000 patients: besides social anxiety disorder (1250
patients)
107
, there are groups devoted to generalized
anxiety disorder (1329 patients), panic disorder (1300
patients), and specic phobia (1224 patients), allowing for
disorder-specic and cross-disorder comparisons. The
antisocial behavior WG aims to clarify how conduct dis-
order, psychopathy, and antisocial personality disorder
relate to differences in brain structure, function, and
connectivity. Its goals include examination of different
phenotypes (e.g., reactive vs proactive aggression),
population-based samples with dimensional measures of
antisocial behavior, and genetic data from casecontrol
and population-based studies.
Building on the promising ndings from the psychiatric
WGs, ENIGMA established seven WGs studying specic
conditions in neurology and cancer-related cognitive
impairment: epilepsy, traumatic brain injury, Parkinsons
disease, neuro-HIV, ataxia, stroke recovery, and cancer/
chemotherapy effects on the brain
108,109
.
ENIGMA-Epilepsy
The ENIGMA-Epilepsy WG combined data from 24
centers across 14 countries to create the largest neuroi-
maging study to date of epilepsy
9
. Data from 2149 indi-
viduals with epilepsy were divided into four common
epilepsy syndromes: idiopathic generalized epilepsies (N
= 367), mesial temporal lobe epilepsies with hippocampal
sclerosis (MTLE; left, N = 415; right, N = 339), and all
other epilepsies in aggregate (N = 1026), compared to
1727 matched healthy controls. Compared to controls, all
epilepsy groups showed lower volume in the right thala-
mus (d = 0.24 to 0.73), and lower thickness in the
precentral gyri bilaterally (d = 0.34 to 0.52). Both
Thompson et al. Translational Psychiatry Page 14 of 26
UNCORRECTED PROOF
MTLE subgroups also showed profound volume reduc-
tion in the ipsilateral hippocampus (d = 1.73 to 1.91),
and lower thickness in cortical regions, including the
precentral and paracentral gyri (d = 0.36 to 0.52)
compared to controls. Notably, the effect sizes for cortical
differences in this neurological disorder were much
greater than those seen in all complex psychiatric dis-
orders. In an approach known as virtual histology,a
follow-up study
110
overlaid the cortical decit maps on
gene-expression data from the Allen Brain Atlas, and
detected enrichment for microglial markers in regions
with greater decits. The WG is currently combining DTI
data and exploring putative neuroanatomical biomarkers
of medication treatment resistance and post-operative
outcomes.
ENIGMA-brain injury
ENIGMAs Brain Injury WG
111
combines data from 72
centers, and is organized into ten separate subgroups that
focus on (1) acute mild traumatic brain injury (TBI), (2)
adult moderate/severe TBI
112
, (3) pediatric moderate/
severe TBI
113,114
, (4) military-related brain injury
115118
,
(5) sports-related concussion
119
, (6) intimate partner
violence
120
, (7) MR spectroscopy
121
, (8) arterial spin
labeling, (9) resting state fMRI, and (10) cognitive end-
points. These groups have recently started-up compared
to other ENIGMA WGs, but are rapidly expanding in
membership and focus. In addition to meta- and mega-
analyses of relevant existing datasets, the Brain Injury
WGs endeavor to further extend efforts to promote
increased consistency in prospective data collection, both
in terms of imaging data and associated cognitive out-
come data. Additionally, the WGs are engaged in the
development of novel pipelines and analytic tools that
address brain-injury specic issues or incorporate
sequences or techniques that are potentially useful in
addressing injury associated pathology. For example,
future planned studies will compute structural pathology
proles for individual TBI patients, including (i) mapping
of the heterogeneous lesions using advanced lesion
mapping methods (such as disconnectome symptom
mapping), (ii) accurate quantication of brain atrophy (of
the different brain regions) using tensor based morpho-
metry, and (iii) identication of subject-specic epicenters
best predictive of neurodegeneration using network
spread models. Finally, the Brain Injury WGs will inter-
face with other disease-specic WGs where comorbidity
with brain injury is high (e.g., substance use, PTSD, MDD,
ADHD), as well as with methods-focused WGs (e.g., dif-
fusion imaging, etc.). A preliminary report on 117 parti-
cipants with military-relevant blast-related versus 227
participants with non-blast related injury revealed higher
FA in veterans and service members with blast-related
injuries, and altered subcortical volumes in the group with
military TBI overall
117
. Work is ongoing to study the
effects of injuries sustained during and outside deploy-
ment, and severity and mechanisms of injury.
ENIGMA-Parkinsons disease
ENIGMAs Parkinsons disease WG has analyzed scans
from 11 cohorts spanning 10 countries including 1288
patients with PD and 679 controls (age: 2089
years)
122,123
. A PD diagnosis was associated with moder-
ately larger thalamic volumes (left: d = 0.29; right: d =
0.17) and smaller pallidal volumes (left: d = 0.25; right:
d = 0.21). There was also widespread and lower cortical
thickness in PD patients, while sparing the limbic and
insular cortices. Ongoing work on a larger sample is
relating brain structure and WM microstructure to dis-
ease severity, medication status and history and duration
of the illness as modiers of these robust differences
between patients and controls.
ENIGMA-human immunode ciency virus
The availability of combination antiretroviral therapy
(cART) has now transformed HIV-infection from a pos-
sibly fatal diagnosis to a chronic condition, allowing for
viral suppression and stable immune function; however,
despite inconsistencies in neuroimaging studies, neuro-
logical symptoms and consequences persist. This WG has
pooled data from 12 independent neuro-HIV studies from
Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America;
volume estimates for eight subcortical brain regions were
extracted from anatomical MRI from 1044 HIV + adults
(age: 2281 years) to identify associations with plasma
markers reecting immunosuppression (CD4+ T-cell
count) or viral load
124
. Across participants, lower cur-
rent CD4+ count was associated with smaller hippo-
campal and thalamic volumes. A detectable viral load was
also associated with smaller hippocampal (d = 0.24) and
amygdalar volumes (d = 0.18), supporting the importance
of achieving viral suppression and immune restoration.
These limbic effects are in contrast to many of the early
neuro-HIV ndings that focused on basal ganglia struc-
tures, yet we found the limbic associations were largely
driven by participants on cART, while basal ganglia effects
(putamen) were detected in the subset of participants not
on cART. These ndings demonstrate the continuing
effects of HIV on the brain in the current cART era.
Alterations in brain structures that are essential for
learning and memory has clinical signicance given
mounting evidence of HIV-associated decits in these
cognitive domains among older HIV+ adults, and the
possibility that HIV may contribute to abnormal brain
aging
125
.
Thompson et al. Translational Psychiatry Page 15 of 26
UNCORRECTED PROOF
ENIGMA-Ataxia
This WG includes 21 sites pooling data from more than
750 individuals with inherited ataxias, including Frie-
dreich Ataxia and Spinocerebellar Ataxia (SCA) 1, 2, 3, 6,
and 7 (the poly-glutamine SCAs), alongside over 800
controls. This group is undertaking optimization and
standardization of protocols for cerebellar voxel-based
morphometry and parcellation, upper spinal cord cross-
sectional area, and brainstem volume, in line with the key
regions of pathology in these diseases. Preliminary work
indicates that gray matter degeneration principally
impacts the cerebellar anterior lobe in Friedreich ataxia,
while all areas of the cerebellum are affected in the poly-
glutamine SCAs. However, both the magnitude and pat-
tern of cerebellar gray matter degeneration are distinct
across these diseases and evolve with disease progression
and severity.
ENIGMA-stroke recovery
The ENIGMA-stroke recovery WG has addressed a
major gap in stroke research relating to the large-scale
denition of lesion masks. Researchers in this WG have
released a public archive of 304 T1-weighted MRIs with
manually segmented stroke lesion masks
126
(https://www.
icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ADDEP/studies/36684), and
developed open-source software
127
and analyses specic
for scalable
128
, reproducible lesion analyses (https://
github.com/npnl/PALS). In addition to this major meth-
odological contribution they have analyzed data from 629
participants from 22 sites worldwide to identify reliable
predictors of motor function after stroke
129,130
. They
found that motor-related subcortical volumes in the basal
ganglia and thalamus are positively associated with post-
stroke motor performance, and depend on impairment
severity, time since stroke, and lesion laterality. In con-
trast, enlarged lateral ventricles are associated with worse
post-stroke motor outcomes. The group now has data
from 1625 participants from 32 sites worldwide, and
ongoing work in the group focuses on quantifying lesion
overlap with major motor-related structures, such as the
corticospinal tracts and subcortical regions
131,132
, and
relating these measures with subcortical volumetric
measures to motor outcomes
133
.
ENIGMA-methods focused working groups
The ENIGMA Consortium functions as a driving force
for the development, validation and implementation of
novel methods to address the complexities of analyses of
large imaging datasets and to derive more mechanistic
insights into the processes that underpin variation in
brain organization in health and disease. To achieve this,
ENIGMA has dedicated WGs focused on the develop-
ment of more innovative pipelines for data analyses to be
applied for various dataset worldwide. The ENIGMA
Diffusion MRI WG on DTI is one of the most long-
standing. DTI offers information on microstructural
abnormalities that are not detectable on standard anato-
mical MRI. As mentioned earlier, this WG has published a
series of papers on the heritability and reproducibility of
DTI measures derived with a custom protocol based on
tract-based spatial statistics
64,134
. Diagnosis-based WGs
have used this protocol to rank effect sizes for DTI
metrics as previously described or are undertaking similar
studies including in 22q11DS
17
, epilepsy, PTSD
76
, military
TBI
113
, HIV
135
, and OCD
136
.
Other methodological WGs have focused on anatomical
shape analyses that enable a more precise characterization
of regional brain alterations thus resolving subregional
effects in the basal ganglia, amygdala, and hippo-
campus
55,85,137142
. Other approaches currently used in
ENIGMA include brain structural covariance analysis
(graph theory approach for intra-individual brain struc-
tural covariance networks in OCD
77,143
, sulcal morpho-
metry, hippocampal subeld analysis
8082,144
and disease
effects on lateralization (in OCD, MDD, and ASD)
71,90,97
.
More recently, ENIGMAs Brain Age WG was formed to
apply various algorithmic estimators of brain age across
several ENIGMA WGs
72
. From the ENIGMA-Brain
Injury group, the MR spectroscopy (MRS) WG has
formed to focus on the harmonization of MRS data which
could reach across other WGs in the future.
The impact of ENIGMA
The ENIGMA Consortium has been a driving force in
the eld of neuroscience by making substantial con-
tributions to the science of brain variation and shaping
the working practices of the eld at various levels. In
reecting on the key achievements, three areas stand out:
Promoting robustness and reproducibility
ENIGMAs big data approach to neuroimaging
addresses directly the reproducibility challenges that
plague many areas of biomedical scienceincluding
neuroscience
145147
. Neuroimaging has received con-
siderable scrutiny regarding the reliability of published
ndings, given the literature replete with studies based on
small samples and seemingly unlimited methodological
freedom
148,149
. Many other approaches also aim to tackle
this reproducibility crisis, by building data repositories
that can be accessed for replication
150152
; yet ENIGMA
offers an opportunity to collaborate with teams of diverse
experts irrespective of whether or not any data is shared.
In one recent study by ENIGMAs Laterality group, the
authors examined brain asymmetry in 99 MRI datasets
worldwide (from N = 17,141 people) and found that, as
expected, the reproducibility of ndings increased with
the effect size and sample size, in a setting that was free
from publication bias (data available at: http://conxz.net/
Thompson et al. Translational Psychiatry Page 16 of 26
UNCORRECTED PROOF
neurohemi/)
18,153
. For example, for effect sizes of d 0.6,
the reproducibility rate was higher than 90% even when
including the datasets with sample sizes as low as 15,
while it was impossible to obtain 70% reproducibility for
small effects of d < 0.2, even with a relatively large mini-
mum sample size threshold of 500. The unprecedented
size of the datasets analyzed across ENIGMA boosts
statistical power to detect the effects of disease and their
moderators
73,154
. Through data sharing, investigators can
now identify patterns of brain abnormalities that con-
sistently characterize disorders or clinical syndromes,
while assessing their reproducibility across continents.
This is exemplied by the close match between the
schizophrenia ndings by ENIGMA
54,60
and independent
work by the Japanese Consortium, COCORO
58
and a
recent Norwegian study of 16 cohorts by Alnæs
59
. In all
three studies, schizophrenia patients showed enlargement
of the lateral ventricles, pallidum, putamen, and caudate,
and volume reduction in the hippocampus, amygdala,
thalamus and accumbens, with a strong agreement in the
magnitude and rank order of effects from highest to least
group difference. Similarly, a recent GWAS study of the
UK Biobank dataset
155
was able to replicate the majority
of the genetic loci discovered by ENIGMA in two separate
GWAS of subcortical volumes
24,25
. Thus, the interna-
tional, multi-site nature of ENIGMA studies likely pro-
motes representative ndings that are widely
generalizable. Meanwhile, the larger and more diverse
samples are valuable resources for understanding the
heterogeneity across different studies, and may provide
new insights into the reproducibility issue faced by the
neuroimaging community. Moreover, ENIGMA offers a
platform for investigators to converge on methods for
sharing and analyzing data acceptable to the community.
ENIGMA also offers new opportunities to change the
landscape for how data can be used. In current research
practices, a great resource of data remains largely
untapped that is often known as long-tail data: data sets
collected in individual laboratories that accumulate over
many years and funding cycles
156
. Much valuable data
remains dormant (and unpublished) due to a lack of
personnel and time to analyze it, and this is going to
increase with studies including larger samples than before.
Efforts through ENIGMA to leverage dormant data in
labs throughout the world have at least three important
advantages. First, data sharing increases the scope of the
science, enhancing opportunities for analyses not other-
wise possible with small sample sizes. Second, data shar-
ing naturally engages scientists from distinct disciplines
a crucial step for advancing the clinical neurosciences
157
.
A nal benet that is sometimes overlooked in global
scientic collaborations is their power to build and
enhance diplomatic relations and transcend political
conicts between nations
158
. With representation from 43
countriessome of which have minimal diplomatic ties
collaborations are not only constructive in terms of col-
lective problem solving, but they also build connections
between high income countries and the poorest nations
across the globe and to build capacity in the latter
158
.
Setting methodological standards
The ENIGMA Consortium has provided a blueprint for
multi-site standardization in terms of mining legacy
neuroimaging and genetic data. The success of this
approach is obvious when considering the volume of over
50 published works that has relied on the ENIGMA
pipelines. Furthermore, funding bodies, such as the
National Institutes of Health in the United States, have
gained interest in such approaches; program announce-
ments requesting applications on aggregating existing
biomedical data, or making use of existing resources, have
become increasingly common. Moving forward, ENIGMA
remains a test-bed of unprecedented scale and power for
developing and benchmarking novel analytic methods.
This contribution is of paramount importance as
advanced statistical modeling and bioinformatics become
essential for analytic pipelines. In efforts complementary
to the technical advances made in multisite data collec-
tion initiatives such as the Alzheimers Disease Neuroi-
maging Initiative, the Human Connectome Project, and
the UK Biobank, ENIGMAs studies have required us to
continually develop new scientic approaches to analyze
data from diverse and independent populations. ENIGMA
has made several technical advances that may be adapted
to other domains, including creating, adapting, and
extensively testing harmonized methods for distributed
analysis, meta-analysis, and cross-site data integration
(see Supplementary Appendix A: Technical Contributions
of ENIGMA).
Driving discovery
Neuroimaging and genetics are elds of both large and
small effects. For common, complex chronic diseases,
effects on brain metrics can be very subtle, but for rare
monogenic disorders and across the eld of neurology
including epilepsy, brain injury, stroke and neuro-oncol-
ogy, disease effects can be relatively large (although not
exclusively). In the 10 years since ENIGMA was founded,
the primary lesson has been on the power of worldwide
collaboration to discern subtle patterns in brain data, and
advance neuroscience beyond the capacity of any one
group of researchers collecting data on their own. New
discoveries regarding the factors that inuence brain
organization and its association with health and disease
are predicated on having adequate statistical power and
on developing new neuroimaging approaches aiming to
lead to more mechanistic explanations of the multi-scale
organization of the brain.
Thompson et al. Translational Psychiatry Page 17 of 26
UNCORRECTED PROOF
Challenges and future directions
Even given the advances made through ENIGMA dur-
ing its rst decade, as a growing consortium, ENIGMA
faces important challenges. Thus far, ENIGMA has largely
relied on existing data, which implies a degree of het-
erogeneity with respect to phenotypingincluding clin-
ical assessments, scanners and imaging protocols.
Another limitation of this type of data is that the depth of
phenotyping varies across centers, which can lead to a
limited set of clinical and other scales shared by all cen-
ters. As we discuss below, ENIGMA is now beginning to
address these limitations with a series of newly funded
and planned studies
111,112,114,118121
. The paucity of
longitudinal data in the literature is also reected within
ENIGMA, which includes a limited number of long-
itudinal studies. Consequently, the data-driven approach
used in ENIGMA is complementary, but not always
superior, to well-designed, hypothesis-driven, smaller-
scale prospective single-center or multi-center studies
with in-depth phenotyping.
Extending imaging modalities and computational
approaches
ENIGMAs future developments will include the coor-
dinated analyses of new data modalities (such as resting
state and task-related functional MRI
159162
, as well as
geostatistical and mobile sensor data), and deeper or more
rened analyses of current imaging modalities. Diffusion
MRI, in particular, is moving towards multi-shell proto-
cols that can better differentiate cellular and
microstructural sources of variance that may explain
patterns observed with DTI
17
. Multimodal projects that
pool data across imaging modalities are likely to boost the
accuracy of machine learning methods for differential
diagnosis, outcome prediction, and subtyping. Unsu-
pervised learningapplied to imaging and clinical data
may also help to identify homogeneous subgroups within
and across disorders. Deep learning, for example, benets
from very large datasets, such as those analyzed in
ENIGMA, and these and other articial intelligence
methods show promise in identifying unsuspected fea-
tures and patterns in images beyond those derived using
traditional methods. From its inception, ENIGMA has
accommodated varying data sharing practices across
institutions and countries, has used strategies (such as
meta-analysis) to overcome some of these, and is working
with eld experts on novel strategies (like COINSTAC or
other distributed analysis approaches)
163
to allow for
more powerful analysis without sending data around the
globe. On the omics side, whole genome sequencing
promises to rene our understanding of causal loci across
all phenotypes, from plasma markers and brain metrics to
environmental exposure and clinical measures of disease
burden.
Cross-disorder analyses
ENIGMA has recently created cross-disorder groups to
answer transdiagnostic questions that draw on data from
multiple WGs
164
. An exemplar of this approach is the
newly formed ENIGMA-Relatives WG which examines
Fig. 7 Topology of large-scale scientic collaboration. a The topology of scientic collaboration in ENIGMA has some properties that resemble a
modular hierarchical network (Ravasz and Barabasi
199
, Slaughter
200
). In this diagram (a), nodes represent individual scientists working on a project,
and links denote active scientic collaborations (that might result in co-authored publications, like this review, for example). ENIGMAs WGs resemble
the yellow sets of nodes: guided by a small group of WG chairs, several clusters of scientists coordinate projects applying various methods to the
same datasets (e.g., MRI and DTI meta-analysis, machine learning, and modeling of clinical outcomes). WGs study different disorders with the same
harmonized methods, enabling to cross-disorder collaborations across WGs. The modular organization allows independent and coordinated projects
to proceed in parallel, distributing work and coordination, without requiring a central hub for all communication. Real clusters may differ in their
number of members and links [(b) shows a different graph with a similar hierarchical modular form], and may change dynamically over time as new
groups and projects form and projects end.
Thompson et al. Translational Psychiatry Page 18 of 26
UNCORRECTED PROOF
brain organization in the unaffected rst-degree relatives
of patients with psychiatric disorders. The rst study from
this group focused on identifying common and distinct
anatomical patterns in patients with SCZ (N = 1016) or
BD (N = 666) and their unaffected relatives (N for SCZ
relatives = 1228 and for BD relatives = 852)
11
.A
remarkable nding from this study is that the rst-degree
relatives of BD patients had larger ICV compared to
controls (d = 0.16) while rst-degree relatives of SCZ
patients had smaller ICV and lower cortical thickness, and
when controlling for ICV, had regionally smaller thalamic
volumes. Other newly formed groups aim to aggregate
data across the spectrum of mental illness that may be
prone to similar symptoms and outcomes, such as suicidal
ideations and actions. Cross-disorder initiatives have
formed within ENIGMA as partnerships between existing
group members. The topology of collaboration (Fig. 7)
includes working partnerships between group members
working on similar problems, providing natural connec-
tions between topics of study of the different groups.
Sex differences
ENIGMAs sex differences Initiative is probing disease
WG datasets to better understand sex disparities in risk
factors, disease effects, or outcomes and their relationship
with brain organization. In a new initiative, the ENIGMA-
Transgender WG is contributing additional insights with
respect to the biological underpinnings of sex assigned at
birth versus gender identity
165
. The rst study from this
group was based on more than 800 scans and pooled
various MRI-based measures (cortical thickness, surface
area, and volume) across eight international sites. While
effects varied depending on the morphometric measure
applied and the brain regions considered, a general pat-
tern emerged: transgender men (assigned female at birth)
mostly resemble cis-gender women, whereas transgender
women (assigned male at birth) range between cis-gender
men and cis-gender women
166
. Ongoing initiatives
examining sex-differences focus on sex-specic GWAS
studies, and developmental and aging trajectories.
Global health disparities
Health disparities, including those that exist in low and
middle income countries, are also a topic of great interest
for ENIGMA, as prevalence, treatments, and access to
healthcare varies within and across countries. While the
analyses in ENIGMA so far tend to show cross-national
agreement in brain signatures and associated genetic loci
of various psychiatric diseases, more in-depth phenotyp-
ing may reveal circumstances where risk factors apply
more strongly to specic ethnic or sociodemographic
groups, and means to remediate them, consistent with the
concept of precision public health.
In closing, we reiterate ENIGMAs mission statement,
which reads : Individually, we contribu te l ittle to the
Q8
quest for truth, but working together, the whole vast
world of science is within our reach.
Q9
(Aristotle, 350
BCE)
69,134,167196
.
Acknowledgements
The work reported here was supported in part by many public and private
agencies across the world. Individual authors funding is listed in
Supplementary Appendix B. Core funding for ENIGMA was provided by the NIH
Big Data to Knowledge (BD2K) program under consortium grant U54
EB020403, by the ENIGMA World Aging Center (R56 AG058854), and by the
ENIGMA Sex Differences Initiative (R01 MH116147). Additional support was
provided by grants to the ENIGMA-PGC PTSD Working Group (R01 MH111671;
PI: RAM), the ENIGMA-Addiction Working Group (R01 DA047119; to H.P.G. and
P.J.C.), the ENIGMA Suicidal Thoughts and Behavior Working Group (R01
MH117601; to N.J. and L.S.), the ENIGMA Epilepsy Working Group (R01
NS107739; to C.R.M.), a genotyping grant from the Australian NHMRC
(APP1103623 and APP1158127; to SEM), a German federal grant to the ENIGMA
Task-Related fMRI Group (ER724/4-1 and WA1539/11-1; to H.W. and I.M.V.), a
Kavli Foundation Neuroscience without Borders seed grant (to N.J. and P.M.T.),
an NIH instrumentation grant (S10 OD023696 to P.K.), and K01 HD091283 (to S.
L.L.). We thank all scientists and participants in ENIGMA who made this work
possible.
Conict of interest
Individual authors disclosures and conicts of interest are listed in
Supplementary Appendix C.
Publishers note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional afliations.
Supplementary Information accompanies this paper at (https://doi.org/
10.1038/s41398-020-0705-1).
Received: 3 July 2019 Revised: 11 December 2019 Accepted: 20 December
2019.
Published online: xx xxx 2020
References
1. vanErp,T.G.M.etal.CorticalBrainAbnormalities in 4474 Individuals with
Schizophrenia and 5098 Control Subjects via the Enhancing Neuro Imaging
Genetics through Meta Analysis (ENIG MA) Consortium. Biol. Psychiatry 84,
644654 (2018).
2. Hibar, D. P. et al. Cortical abnormalities in bipolar disorder: an MRI analysis of
6503 individual s f rom the ENIGMA Bipolar Disorder W orking Group. Mol.
Psychiatry 23,932942 (2018).
3. Schmaal, L. et al. Cortical abnormalities in adults and adolescents with major
depression based on brain scans from 20 cohorts worldwide in the ENIGMA
major depressive disorder working group. Mol. Psychiatry 22,900909 (2017).
4. Logue, M. W. et al. Smal ler hippocam pal volume in posttraumatic stress
disorder: a multisite ENIGMA-PGC study: subcortical volumetry results from
posttraumatic stress disorder consortia. Biol. Psychiatry 83,244253 (2018).
5. Mackey, S. et al. Mega-analysis of gray matter volume in substance depen-
dence: general and substance-specic regional effects. Am.J.Psychiatry176,
119128 (2019).
6. Boedhoe, P. S. W. et al. Cortical abnormalities associated with pediatric and
adult obsessive-compulsive disorder: ndings from the ENIGMA obsessive-
compulsive disorder working group. Am. J. Psychiatry 175,453462 (2018).
7. Hoogman, M. et al. Brain imaging of the cortex in ADHD: a coordinated
analysis of large-scale clinical and population-based samples. Am.J.Psy-
chiatry. https://doi.org/10.1 176/appi.ajp. 2019.1809 1033
(2019).
8. van Rooij, D. et al. Cortical and subcortical brain morphometry differences
betweenpatientswithautismspectrum disorder and healthy individuals
across the lifes pan: results from the ENIGMA ASD Workin g Group. Am. J.
Psychiatry 175, 359369 (2018).
Thompson et al. Translational Psychiatry Page 19 of 26
UNCORRECTED PROOF
9. Whelan, C. D. et al. Structural brain abnormalities in the common epilepsies
assessed in a worldwide ENIGMA study. Brain 141,391408 (2018).
10. Sun, D. et al. Large-scale mapping of cortical alterations in 22q11.2 deletion
syndrome: converge nce with idiopathic psychosis and effe cts of deletion
size. Mol. Psychiatry https://doi.org/10 .1038/s4 1380-018-00 78-5 (2018).
11. de Zwart e, S. M. C. et al. The association between familial r isk and br ain
abnormalities isdisease-specic: an ENIGMArelatives study of schizophrenia
and bipolar disorder. Biol. Psychiatry (2019).
Q10
12. Boedhoe, P. et al. Subcortical brain volume, regional cortical thickness and
surface area variations across attention- decit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD),
autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD).
Am.J.Psychiatry(2019).
13. Grasby, K. L. et al. The genetic architecture of the human cerebral cortex.
Preprint at https://doi.org/10.1101/3 99402.(2018).
Q11
14. Satizabal,C.L.etal.Geneticarchitectureofsubcorticalbrainstructuresin
38,854 individuals worldwide. Nat. Genet. (2019).
Q12
15. Hofer, E. et al. Genetic determinants of cortical structure (thickness, surface
area and volumes) among disease free adults in the CHARGE Consortium.
bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/ 409649 (2019).
16. Shin, J. et al. Planar cell polarity pathway and development of the human
visual cortex. bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/4 04558 (2018).
17. Villalón-Reina, J. E. et al. Altered White Matter Microstructure in 22q11.2
Deletion Syndrome: A Multi-Site Diffusion Tensor Imaging Study. Mol. Psy-
chiatry (2019).
18. Kong, X.-Z., et al. An illustration of reproducibility in human neuroscience in
the absence of selective reporting. (2019) (in preparation).
19. Jahanshad, N. et al. Do candidate genes affect the brainswhitematter
microstructure? large-scale evaluation of 6,165 diffusion mri scans. bioRxiv.
https://doi.or g/10.1101/ 107987 (2017).
20. Border, R. et al. No support for historical candidate gene or candidate gene-
by-interaction hypotheses for major depression across multiple large sam-
ples. Am. J. Psychiatry 176,376387 (2019).
21. Farrell, M. S. et al. Evaluating historical candidate genes for schizophrenia.
Mol. Psychiatry 20,555562 (2015).
22. Kunkle, B. W. et al. Genetic meta-analysis of diagnosed Alzheimersdisease
identie s new risk loci and implicates Aβ, tau, immunity and lipid processing.
Nat. Genet 51,414430 (2019).
23. Nunes, A. et al. Using structural MRI to identify bipolar disorders 13 site
machine learning study in 3020 individuals from the ENIGMA Bipolar Dis-
orders Working Group. Mol. Psychiatry. https: //doi.org/10. 1038/s413 80-018-
0228-9 (2018).
24. Stein, J. L. et al. Identic ation of common variants associated with human
hippocampal and intracranial volumes. Nat. Genet. 44,552561 (2012).
25. Hibar,D.P.etal.Commongeneticvariantsinuence human subcortical
brain structures. Nature 520,224229 (2015).
26. Tilot, A. K. et al. Unearthing the evolutionary history of genetic variants
inuencing human cortical surface area. biorXiv. https://doi.org/10.11 01/
703793 (2019).
27. Tilot, A. K. et al. Unearthing the evolutionary history of genetic variants
inuencing human cortical surface area. in Abstract Presented at 49
th
Annual
Meeting of the Society for Neuroscience Nov. 37 (San Diego, CA, 2018).
28. Medland,S.E.,Jahanshad,N.,Neale,B.M.&Thompson,P.M.Whole-genome
analyses of whole-brain data: working within an expanded search space. Nat.
Neurosci. 17,791800 (2014).
29. Roshchupkin, G. V. et al. Heritability of the shape of subcortical brain struc-
tures in the general population. Nat. Commun. 7, 13738 (2016).
30. Adams, H. H. H. et al. Full exploitation of high dimensionality in brain ima-
ging: The JPND working group statement and ndings. Alzheimers Dement
11,286290 (2019).
31. Roshchupkin, G. V. et al. One and a half million genome wide-association
studies of brain morphometry: a proof-of-concept study. Submitted to ESHG
(2019) (submitted).
Q13
32. Jahanshad, N. et al. Genome-wide scan of healthy human connectome
discovers SPON1 gene variant inuencing dementia severity. Proc. Natl Acad.
Sci. USA 110, 47684773 (2013).
33. Thompson,P.M.,Ge,T.,Glahn,D.C.,Jahanshad,N.&Nichols,T.E.Geneticsof
the connectome. Neuroimage 80,475488 (2013).
34. Thompson, P. M., Hibar, D. P., Stein, J. L., Prasad, G. & Jahanshad, N. in Micro-,
Meso- and Macro-Connectomics of the Brain (eds Kennedy, H., Van Essen, D. C.
& Christen, Y. (Springer: Cham (CH), 2016).
35. Holland, D. et al. Beyond SNP heritability: polygenicity and discoverability of
phenotypes es timated with a univariate gaus sian mixture model. bioRxiv.
https://doi.or g/10.1111/ 498550 (2018).
36. Le, B. D. & Stein, J. L. Mapping causal pathways from genetics to neu-
ropsychiatric disorders using genome-wide imaging genetics: current status
and future directi ons. Psychiatry Clin. Neurosci. https://doi.org/10.11 11/
pcn.12839 (2019).
37. Franke, B. et al. Genetic inuences on schizophrenia and subcortical brain
volumes: large-scale proof of concept. Nat. Neurosci. 19,420431 (2016).
38. Brouwer,R.M.etal.Geneticmarkersforbrainplasticity.inAbstract Presented
at the 25th Organization of Human Brain Mapping Annual Meeting Jun 913
(Rome, Italy, 2019).
39. Brouwer,R.M.etal.Geneticinuences on individual differe nces in long-
itudinal changes in global and subcortical brain volumes: results of the
ENIGMA plasticity working group. Hum. Brain Mapp. 38,44444458 (2017).
40. Smit, D. J. A. et al. Genome-wide association analysis links multiple psychiatric
liability genes to oscillatory brain activity. Hum. Brain Mapp. 39,41834195
(2018).
41. Smeland, O. B. et al. Genetic overlap between schizophrenia and volumes of
hippocampus, putamen, and intracranial volume indicates shared molecular
genetic mechanisms. Schizophr. Bull. 44,854864 (2018).
42. Brainstorm Consortium, A. V. et al. Analysis of shared heritability in common
disorders of the brain. Science 360, https://doi.org/10. 1126/scien ce.aap875 7.
(2018)
43. Lee, P. H. et al. Partitioning heritability analysis reveals a shared genetic basis
of brain anatomy and schizophrenia. Mol. Psychiatry 21, 16801689 (2016).
44. Smeland,O.B.etal.Identication of genetic loci jointly inuencing schizo-
phrenia risk and the cognitive traits of verbal-numerical reasoning, reaction
time, and general cognitive function. JAMA Psychiatry 74,1065107 5 (2017).
45. Hibar,D.P.etal.Signicant concordance of genetic variation that increases
both the risk for obse ssive- compulsive d isorder and the v olumes of the
nucleus accumbens and putamen. Br.J.Psychiatry213,430436 (2018).
46. van der Merwe, C. et al. Concordance of genetic variation that increases risk
for anxiety disorders and posttraumatic stress disorders and that inuences
their underlying neurocircuitry. J. Affect Disord. 245,885896 (2019).
47. Klein, M. et al. Genetic markers of ADHD-related variations in intracranial
volume. Am.J.Psychiatry176, 2282 38 (2019).
48. Walton, E. et al. Exploration of shared genetic architecture between sub-
cortical brain volumes and anorexia nervosa. Mol. Neurobiol. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s12035-0 18-1439-4 (2018).
49. Mufford,M.etal.Concordanceofgenetic variation that increases risk for
tourette syndrome and that inuences its underlying neurocircuitry. Transl.
Psychiatry 9, 120 (2019).
50. Couvy-Duchesne, B. et al. A fast method for estimating statistical power of
multivariate GWAS in real case scenarios: examples from the eld of imaging
genetics. Behav. Genet. 49,112121 (2019).
51. Lorenzi, M. et al. Susceptibility of brain atrophy to TRIB3 in Alzheimers
disease, evidence from functional prioritization in imaging genetics. Proc. Natl
Acad.Sci.USA115, 31623 167 (2018).
52. Jia, T. et al. Epigenome-wide meta-analysis of blood DNA methylation and its
association with subcortical volumes: ndings from the ENIGMA Epigenetics
Working Group. bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10. 1101/460444 (2018).
53. Sønderby,I.E.etal.Doseresponseofthe16p11.2distalcopynumbervariant
on intracranial volume and basal ganglia. Mol. Psychiatry. https://doi.org/
10.1038/s41380-0 18-0118-1 (2018).
54. van Erp, T. G. M. et al. Subcortical brain volume abnormalities in 2028 indi-
viduals with schizophrenia and 2540 healthy controls via the ENIGMA con-
sortium. Mol. Psychiatry 21,547553 (2016).
55. Gutman, B. A. et al. A Meta-Analysis of Deep Brain Structural Shape
Abnormalities in 2,763 Individuals with Schizophrenia Compared to 3,768
Healthy Volunteers via the ENIGMA Consortium. To be submitted to
Mol.
Psychiatry (2019) (submitted)).
Q14
56. Kelly, S. et al. Widespread white matter microstructural differences in schi-
zophrenia across 4322 individuals: results from the ENIGMA Schizophrenia
DTI Working Group. Mol. Psychiatry 23, 12611269 (2018).
57. Holleran, L. et al. The relationship between white matter microstructure and
general cognitive ability in patients with schizophrenia and healthy partici-
pants in the ENIGMA consortium. Mol. Psychiatry (2019) (submitted).
58. Okada, N. et al. Abnormal asymmetries in subcortical brain volume in schi-
zophrenia. Mol. Psychiatry 21, 14601466 (2016).
Thompson et al. Translational Psychiatry Page 20 of 26
UNCORRECTED PROOF
59. Alnæs, D. et al. Brain heterogeneity in schizophrenia and its association with
polygenic risk. JAMA Psychiatry https://doi.or g/10.1001/
jamapsychiatry.2019.0257 (2019).
60. Kochunov, P., Thompson, P. M. & Hong, L. E. Toward high reproducibility and
accountable heterogeneity in schizophrenia research. JAMA Psychiatry
https://doi.org/10 .1001/jam apsychiatry.2019 .0208 (2019).
61. van Erp, T. G. M. et al. Reply to: New meta- and mega-analyses of magnetic
resonance imaging nd ings in schizophrenia: do they reall y increase our
knowledge about the nature of the disease process? Biol. Psychiatry 85,
e35e39. (2019).
62. Walton, E. et al. Positive symptoms associate with cortical thinning in the
superior temporal gyrus via the ENIGMA Schizophrenia consortium. Acta
Psychiatr. Scand. 135,439447 (2017).
63. Walton, E. et al. Prefrontal cortical thinning links to negative symptoms in
schizophrenia via the ENIGMA consortium. Psychol. Med. 48,8294 (2018).
64. Smith, S. M. et al. Tract-based spatial statistics: voxelwise analysis of multi-
subject diffusion data. Neuroimage 31,14871505 (2006).
65. Jahanshad, N. et al. Multi-site genetic analysis of diffusion images and vox-
elwise heritability analysis: A pilot project of the ENIGMA-DTI working group.
Neuroimage 81,455469 (2013).
66. Kochunov, P. et al. Integration of routine QA data into mega-analysis may
improve quality and sensitivity of multisite diffusion tensor imaging studies.
Hum. Brain Mapp. 39,101510 23 (2018).
67. van Velzen, L. S. et al. White matter disturbances in major depressive disorder:
a coordinated analysis across 20 international cohorts in the ENIGMA MDD
working group. Mol. Psychiatry (2019).
68. Hibar, D. P. et al. Subcortical volumetric abnormalities in bipolar disorder. Mol.
Psychiatry 21, 17101716 (2016).
69. Favre,P.etal.Widespreadwhitematter microstructural abnormalities in
bipolar disorder: evidence from mega- and meta-analyses across 3033
individuals. Neuropsychopharmac ology 44,22852293 (2019).
70. Schmaal, L. et al. Subcortical brain alterations in major depressive disorder:
ndin gs from the ENIGMA Major Depressive Disorder working group. Mol.
Psychiatry 21,806812 (2016).
71. deKovel,C.G.F.etal.NoalterationsofbrainstructuralasymmetryinMajor
Depressive Disorder: An ENIGMA consortium analysis. Am.J.Psychiatry(2019).
72. Han, L. K. M. et al. Brain aging in major depressive disorder: results from the
ENIGMA Major Depressive Disorder working group. bioRxiv.
https://doi.org/
10.1101/5606 23 (2019).
73. Opel, N. et al. Corresponding patterns of brain structural abnormalities in
obesity mirror ndings in common neuropsychiatric disorders Evidence
through uni variate and multivariate mega-analysis includin g 6,420 partici-
pants from the ENIGMA MDD working group. (2019) (to be submitted).
74. Frodl, T. et al. Childhood adversity impacts on brain subcortical structures
relevant to depression. J. Psychiatr. Res. 86,5865 (2017).
75. Tozzi, L. et al. Interactive impact of childhood maltreatment, depression, and
age on cortical brain structure: mega-analytic ndings from a large multi-site
cohort. Psychol. Med. 14,112 (2019).
76. Dennis, E. L. et al. Altered white matter microstructural organization in post-
traumatic stress disorder across 3,047 adults: results from the PGC-ENIGMA
PTSD Consortium. Mol. J. Psychiatry (2019) (in press).
77. Gopalkumar, R. A structural covariance network analyses of cortical thickness
and surface area in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from the ENIGMA
Worldwide Consortium. (2019).
78. OLeary,B.M.,Xie,C.G.&Angstadt,J.T.Developmentofcorticalvertex-based
mega-analysis to study brain abnormalities in PTSD. Int. Soc. Traumatic Stress
Studies (2019) (submitted).
79. OLeary, B. M., Hong, X., A MR, Israel, L. & Xin W. Development of cortical
vertex-based mega-analysis to study brain abno rmalities in PTSD. Int. Soc.
Traumatic Stress Studies (2018).
80. Salminen, L. E. et al. PTSD and depression show unique trauma-related
signatures in the hippocampal subelds: International analysis from the PGC-
ENIGMA PTSD Working Group. Brain.Preprintathttps://doi.org/10.1101/
739094 (2019) (submitted).
Q15
81. Salminen, L. et al. Hippocampal Subregion Abnormalities in Current and
Lifetime PTSD: International Analysis from the PGC-ENIGMA PTSD Working
Group. in Abstract Presented at the 46
th
Annual Meeting of the International
Neuropsychol ogical Society Feb 14-17 2018; Washington, DC.
82. Saemann,P.etal.ENIGMA-MDDhippocampalsubeld analysis of rst epi-
sode and recurrent Major Depressive Disorder. in Abstract Presented at the
23
rd
Organization of Human Brain Mapping Annual Meeting Jun 2529
(Vancouver, Canada, 2017).
83. Saemann, P. G. et al. FreeSurfer based segmentation of hippocampal sub-
elds : a review of methods and applications, with a novel quality control
procedure and usefulness for ENIGMA studies and other collaborative efforts.
(2018) (submitted).
84. Mackey, S. et al. Genetic imaging consortium for addiction medicine: from
neuroimaging to genes. Prog. Brain Res 224,203223 (2016).
85. Chye, Y. et al. Subcortical surface morphometry in substance dependence: an
ENIGMA addiction working group study. Addiction Biol. e12830 (2019).
86. Conrod, P. et al. Cortical and subcortical differences between alcohol
dependent individuals and controls: meta analysis results from the ENIGMA-
Addiction Working Group. Biol. Psychiatry 81, S41 (2017) .
87. de Wit, S. J. et al. Multicenter voxel-based morphometry mega-analysis of
structural brain scans in obsessive-compulsive disorder. Am.J.Psychiatry171,
340349 (2014).
88. Boedhoe, P. S. W. et al. Distinct subcortical volume alterations in pediatric
and adult OCD: a worldwide meta- and mega-analysis. Am. J. Psychiatry 174,
6069 (2017).
89. Bruin,W.B.etal.Structuralneuroimagingbiomarkersforobsessive-
compulsive disorder in the ENIGMA-OCD consortium: medication matters.
preprint at https://doi.org/10.1 101/19012 567 (2019).
Q16
90. Kong X.-Z., et al. Mapping Cortical and Subcortical Asymmetry in Obsessive-
Compulsive Disorder: Findings from the ENIGMA Consortium. Biol. Psychiatry
(2019).
91. Hoogman, M. et al. Subcortical brain volume differences in participants with
attention decit hyperactivity disorder in children and adults: a cross-
sectional mega-analysis. Lancet Psychiatry 4, 310319 (2017).
92. Hess, J. L., Akutagava-Martins, G. C., Patak, J. D., Glatt, S. J. & Faraone, S. V. Why
is there selective subcortical vulnerability in ADHD? Clues from postmortem
braingeneexpressiondata.Mol. Psychiatry 23, 17871793 (2018).
93. Shaw, P. et al. A multicohort, longitudinal study of cerebellar development in
attention decit hyperactivity disorder. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 59,
11141123 (2018).
94. Zhang-James, Y. et al. Machine learning classicat ion of attention-decit/
hyperactivity disorder using structural MRI data. bioRxiv. https://doi.org/
10.1101/5466 71 (2019).
95. Gottesman, I. I. & Gould, T. D. The endophenotype concept in psychiatry:
etymology and strategic intentions. Am.J.Psychiatry160,636645 (2003).
96. Flint,J.&Munafò,M.R.Theendophenotypeconceptinpsychiatricgenetics.
Psychol. Med. 37,163180 (2007).
97. Postema, M. C. et al. Altered structural brain asymmetry in autism spectrum
disorder in a study of 54 datasets. Nat. Commun. 10,4658(2019).
98. Karkashadze, G. et al. Cortical Morphometry in Gaucher Disease: Findings
from the ENIGMA Storage Disease working group. in Abstract Presented at
the 23
rd
Organizatio n of Human Brain Mapping Annual Meeting Jun 2529
(Vancouver, Canada, 2017).
99. Namazova-Baranova, L. et al. Cortical Morphometry and White Matter
Integrity in Children with Hepatic Glycogen Storage Disease. in Abstract
Presented at the 23
rd
Organization of Human Brain Mapping Annual Meeting
Jun 2529 (Vancouver, Canada, 2017).
100. van der Meer, D. et al. Association of copy number variation of the 15q11.2
region with cortical and subcortical morphology and cognition. JAMA Psy-
chiatry https://doi.org/10.1001/ja mapsychiatry.20 19.3779 (2019).
101. Ching,C.R.K.Thompson,P.M.&Bearden,C.E.,fortheENIGMA22q11.2
Deletion Syndrome Working Group. Convergent subcortical brain alterations
in 22q11.2 deletion syndrome and schizophrenia. in Abstract Presented at the
24
th
Organization of Human Brain Mapping Annual Meeting Jun 1721 (Sin-
gapore, 2018).
102. Stefansson, H. et al. CNVs conferring risk of autism or schizophrenia affect
cognition in controls. Nature 505,361366 (2014).
103. Crawford, K. et al. Medical consequences of pathogenic CNVs in adults:
analysis of the UK Biobank. J. Med. Genet. 56,131138 (2019).
104. King, J. A., Frank, G. K. W., Thompson, P. M. & Ehrlich, S. Structural neuroi-
maging of anorexia nervosa: future directions in the quest for mechanisms
underlying dynamic alterations. Biol. Psychiatry 83,22423 4 (2018).
105. Bas-Hoogendam, J. M. et al. Voxel-based morphometry multi-center mega-
analysis of brain structure in soci al anxiet y disorder. Neuroimage Cl in. 16 ,
678688 (2017).
106. Bas-Hoogendam, J. M. et al. Subcortical brain volumes, cortical thickness and
cortical surface area in families genetically enriched for social anxiety disorder
Thompson et al. Translational Psychiatry Page 21 of 26
UNCORRECTED PROOF
A multiplex multigenerational neuroimaging study. EBioMedicine 36,
4104 28 (2018).
107. Groenewold, N. et al. F27. Subcortical volumes in s ocial anxiety disorder:
preliminary results from enigma-anxiety. Biol. Psychiatry 83,S247S248 (2018).
108. Shiroishi, M. S. et al. Brain cortical structural differences between non-central
nervous system cancer patients treated with and without chemotherapy
compared to non-cancer controls: a cross-sectiona l pilot MRI study using
clinically-indicated scans. Proc. SPIE Int. Soc. Opt. Eng. 10572. https://doi.org/
10.1117/12.228 5971 (2017).
109. Shiroishi, M. S. et al. Brain morphometry in prostate cancer survivors from the
ENIGMA Cancer & Chemotherapy Working Group. in Abstract Presented at the
24
th
Organization of Human Brain Mapping Annual Meeting Jun 1721 (Sin-
gapore, 2017).
110. Altmann, A. et al. A systems-level analysis highlights microglial activation as a
modifying factor in common forms of human epilepsy. bioRxiv. https://doi.
org/10.1101/4705 18 (2018).
111. Wilde, E. A., Dennis, E. L. & Tate D. F. The ENIGMA Brain Injury Working Group:
Approach, Challenges, and Potential Benets. Brain Imaging Behav. (Special
Issue on ENIGMA Brain Injury). Preprint at https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/
t96xb (2019) (submitted).
112. Olsen, A. et al. Toward a Global and Reproducible Science for Brain Imaging
in Neurotrauma: The ENIGMA Adult Moderate/Severe Traumatic Brain Injury
Working Group. Submitted to Brain Imaging Behav. (Special Issue on ENIGMA
Brain Injury). Preprint at https://doi.org /10.31234 /osf.io/jnsb2 . (2019).
113. Dennis, E. L. et al. ENIGMA pediatric msTBI: preliminary results from meta-
analysis of diffusion MRI. in14th International Symposium on Medical Infor-
mation Processing and Analysis. (International Society for Optics and Photo-
nics, 2018).
114. Dennis, E. L., et al. Brain Imaging in Young TBI Patients: A Coordinated Effort
Towards Individualized Predictors from the ENIGMA Pediatric msTBI Group.
Brain Imaging Behav. (Special Issue on ENIGMA Brain Injury). Preprint at
https://doi.org/10.3123 4/osf.io/y2txh (2019) (submitted).
Q17
115. Dennis, E. L. et al. ENIGMA military brain injury: a coordinate meta-analysis of
diffusion MRI from mult iple cohorts. Proc. IEEE Int Symp. Biomed. Imaging
2018, 138613 89 (2018).
116. Dennis, E. L. et al. ENIGMA Military Brain Injury: A Preliminary Meta-Analysis of
Diffusion MRI Measures. in Abstract Presented at the 70
th
Annual Meeting of
the American Academy of Neurology Apr 2127 (Los Angeles, CA, 2018).
117. Dennis, E. L. et al. ENIGMA Military Brain Injury: Altered Subcortical Volume
Revealed by Mega-Analysis. in Abstract Presented at the 71
st
Annual Meeting of
the American Academy of Neurology May 411 (Philadelphia, PA, 2018).
118. Tate, D. F. et al. Coordinating Global Multi-Site Studies of Military TBI:
Potential, Challenge s, and Harmonization Guidelines from the ENIGMA
Military Brain Injury Group. Brain Imaging Behav. (Special Issue on ENIGMA
Brain Injury) (2019) (in preparation).
119. Koerte, I. K. et al. Neuroimaging of Sport-Related Brain Injury: Challenges and
Recommendati ons from the ENIGMA Sports-Related Brain Injury group. Brain
Imaging and Behavior (Special Issue on ENIGMA Brain Injury) (2019) (in
preparation).
120. Esopenko, C. et al. Harmonization of Measures to Assess IPV-Related Head
Trauma: Recommendations from the ENIGMA IPV Working Group. Brain
Imaging Behav. (Special Issue on ENIGMA Brain Injury). Preprint at https://doi.
org/10.31234/osf.io /3xzwg (2019) (submitted).
Q18
121. Bartnik-Olson, B. et al. The Clinical Utility of Magnetic Resonance Spectro-
scopy in Traumatic Brain Injury: Recommendations from the ENIGMA MRS
Working Group. Brain Imaging Behav. (Special Issue on ENIGMA Brain Injury).
Preprint at https://doi.org/10.31234/os f.io/g esvh (2019) (submitted).
122. van der Werf, Y. et al. International mega-analysis of cortical and subcortical
morphometry in ParkinsonsDisease:ENIGMA-PD.inAbstract Presented at the
14
th
International Conference of AlzheimersandParkinsonsDiseasesMar 2631
(Lisbon, Portugal, 2019).
123. vanderWerf,Y.D.etal.ENIGMA-Parkinsons Disease: An International mega-
analysis of cortical and subcortical morphometry in Parkinsonspatients
versus healthy controls. in Abstract Presented at the 25th Organization of
Human Brain Mapping Annual Meeting Jun 913 (Rome, Italy, 2019).
124. Nir, T. M. et al. Smaller limbic brain volumes are associated with greater
immunosuppression in over 1000 HIV-infected adults across ve continents:
ndings from the ENIGMA-HIV Working Group. Preprint at https://doi.org/
10.1101/724583 (2019).
Q19
125. Cole, J. H. et al. Increased brain-predicted aging in treated HIV disease.
Neurology 88, 13491357 (2017).
126. Liew, S.-L. et al. A large, open source dataset of stroke anatomical brain
images and manual lesion segmentations. Sci. Data 5, 180011 (2018).
127. Ito, K. L., Kumar, A., Zavaliangos-Petropulu, A., Cramer, S. C. & Liew, S.-L.
Pipeline for Analyzing Lesions After Stroke (PALS). Front. Neuroinform. 12,63
(2018).
128. Ito,K.L.,Kim,H.&Liew,S.-L.Acomparisonofautomatedlesionsegmen-
tation approaches for chronic stroke T1weighted MRI data. Hum. Brain
Mapp. 40,46694685 (2019).
129. Liew, S.-L. et al. Abstract TMP48: Subcortical Volumes Associated With Post-
Stroke Motor Performance Vary Across Impairment Severity, Time Since
Stroke, and Lesion Laterality: an ENIGMA Stroke Recov ery Anal ysis. Stroke
https://doi.org/10.1161 /str.49.suppl_1. TMP48 (2018).
130. Liew, S.-L. et al. Abstract 14: Effects of Lesion Laterality on Post-Stroke Motor
Performance: An ENIGMA Stroke Recovery Analysis. Stroke https://doi.org/
10.1161/str.48. suppl_1.14 (2017).
131. Ito, K. L. Zavaliangos-Petropulu, A. Cramer, S. C. & Liew S.-L. Effective con-
nectivity of the ipsilesional action observatio n network after stroke. in
Abstract Presented at the 25th Organization of Human Brain Mapping Annual
Meeting Jun 913 (Rome, Italy, 2019).
132. Zavaliangos-Petropulu, A., Jahanshad, N., Thompson, P. M. & Liew, S.-L.
Evaluating Stroke Lesion Overlap with Subcortical Structures and Post-Stroke
Motor Performance. in Abstract Presented at the 25th Organization of Human
Brain Mapping Annual Meeting Jun 913 (Rome, Italy, 2019).
133. Zavaliangos-Petropulu, A. et al. Subcortical Brain Shape Differences Relate to
Post-Stroke Motor Behavior. in Abstract Presented at the American Society of
Neurorehabilitation Conference Annual Meeting Nov 910 (Baltimore , MD,
2017).
134. Kochunov, P. et al. Heterochronicity of white matter development and aging
explains regional patient con trol differences in schizop hrenia. Hum . Brain
Mapp. 37,46734688 (2016).
135. Nir, T. M. et al. Effects of Diffusion MRI Model and Harmonization on the
Consistency of Findings in an International Multi-cohort HIV Neuroimaging
Study. Comput. Diffusion MRI 203215 (2019).
Q20
136. Piras, F. et al. Selective white matter microstructure and its relation to clinical
features of obsessive-compulsive disorder: ndings from the ENIGMA OCD
Working Group. bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.11 01/855916 (2019).
137. Ho, T. C. et al. Subcortical shape alterations in major depressive disorder:
ndings from the ENIGMA Major Depressive Disorder Working Group.
Submitted to Hum. Brain Map p.Preprintathttps://doi.org/10.11 01/534370
(2019).
Q21
138. Petrov, D. et al. Machine learning for large-scale quality control of 3D shape
models in neuroimaging. bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1 101/16649 6 (2017).
139. Petrov, D. et al. Deep Learning for Quality Control of Subcortical Brain 3D
Shape Modelsin Shape in Medical Imaging.268276 (Springer International
Publishing, 2018).
140. Fouche, J.-P. et al. Shape analysis of subcortical structures in obsessive-
compulsive disorder: a multi-site analysis of the OCD Brain Imaging Con-
sortium. (2019) (in preparation).
141. Ching, C. R. K. et al. Subcortical Shape and Volumetric Findings from ENIGMA
22q11.2 Working Group (N = 778). in Abstract Presented at the 23
rd
Organi-
zation of Human Brain Mapping Annual Meeting Jun 2529 (Vancouver,
Canada, 2017).
142. Ching,C.R.K.,Gutman,B.A.,Hibar,D.P.,Thompson,P.M.&Andreassen,O.A.
for the ENIGMA Bipolar Disorder Working Group. Subcortical Shape Analysis
from the ENIGMA Bipolar Disorder Working Group (N = 3,028). in Abstract
Presented at the 23
rd
Organization of Human Brain Mapping Annual Meeting
Jun 2529 (Vancouver, Canada, 2017).
143. Yun, J.-Y., van den Heuvel, O. A. & Kwon J. S. Intra-Individual Distribution of
Brain Morphological Change in Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: A Graph
Theory Approach by ENIGMA OCD Working Group. (2019) (in preparation).
144. Haukvik, U. K. et al. In vivo hippocampal subeld volumes in bipolar disorder
a mega-analysis from the ENIGMA consortium. Am.J.Psychiatry(2019)
(submitted).
145. Button, K. S. Double-dipping revisited. Nat. Neurosci. 22,688690 (2019).
146. Button, K. S. et al. Power failure: why small sample size unde rmines the
reliability of neuroscience. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 14, 3653 76 (2013).
147. Ioannidis, J. P. A. & Khoury, M. J. Evidence-based medicine and big genomic
data. Hum. Mol. Genet. 27,R2R7 (2018).
148. Poldrack,R.A.etal.Scanningthehorizon:towardstransparentandrepro-
ducible neuroimaging research. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 18, 115126 (2017).
Thompson et al. Translational Psychiatry Page 22 of 26
UNCORRECTED PROOF
149. Hallquist, M. N. & Hillary, F. G. Graph theory approaches to functional network
organization in brain disorders: a critique for a brave new small-world. Netw.
Neurosci. 3,126 (2019).
150. Gorgolewski, K. J. et al. NeuroVault.org: a web-based repository for collecting
and sharing unthresholded statistical maps of the human brain. Front.
Neuroinform. 9, 8 (2015).
151. Poldrack, R. A. & Gorgolewski, K. J. OpenfMRI: open sharing of task fMRI data.
Neuroimage 144,259261 (2017).
152. Zuo, X.-N. et al. An open science resource for establishing reliab ility and
reproducibility in functional connectomics. Sci. Data 1, 140049 (2014).
153. Kong, X.-Z. et al. Mapping cortical brain asymmetry in 17,141 healthy indi-
viduals worldwide via the ENIGMA Consortium. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115,
E5154E5163 (2018).
154. Salminen,L.E.etal.HippocampalSubelds in PTSD: Preliminary Results from
the ENIGMA PTSD Working Group. in Abstract Presented at the 23
rd
Organi-
zation of Human Brain Mapping Annual Meeting Jun 2529 (Vancouver,
Canada, 2017).
155. Elliott, L. T. et al. Genome-wide association studies of brain imaging phe-
notypes in UK Biobank. Nature 562, 210216 (2018).
156. Ferguson,A.R.,Nielson,J.L.,Cragin,M.H.,Bandrowski,A.E.&Martone,M.E.
Big data from small data: data-sharing in the long tail of neuroscience. Nat.
Neurosci. 17, 14421447 (2014).
157. Milham, M. P. et al. An open resource for non-human primate imaging.
Neuron 100,6174.e2 (2018).
158. Palk, A., Illes, J., Thompson, P. M. & Stein, D. J. Ethical issues in global imaging
genetics collaborations. NeuroImage (2019) (submitted).
159. Adhikari,B.M.etal.Comparisonofheritability estimates on resting state fMRI
connectivity phenotypes using the ENIGMA analysis pipeline. Hum. Brain
Mapp. 39,48934902 (2018).
160. Adhikari, B. M. et al. Heritability estimates on resting state fMRI data using
ENIGMA analysis pipeline. Pac. Symp. Biocomput. 23,307318 (2018).
161. Adhikari, B. M. et al. Effects of ketamine and midazolam on resting state
connectivity and comparison with ENIGMA connectivity decit patterns in
schizophrenia. Hum. Brain Mapp.112 (2019).
Q22
162. Veer,I.M.,Waller,L.,Lett,T.A.P.,Erk,S.&Walter,H.ENIGMAtask-basedfMRI:A
workgroup studying the genetic basis of task-evoked brain activity. in
Abstract Presented at the 25th Organization of Human Brain Mapping Annual
Meeting Jun 913 (Rome, Italy, 2019).
163. Plis,S.M.etal.COINSTAC:aprivacyenabledmodelandprototypefor
leveraging and processing decentralized brain imaging data. Front. Neurosci.
10, 365 (2016).
164. Boedhoe, P. S. W. et al. An Empirical Comparison of Meta- and Mega-Analysis
with Data from the ENIGMA Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder Working Group,
https://doi.org/10 .3389/fn inf.2018. 00102 (2019).
165. Reardon, S. The largest study involving transgender people is providing long-
sought insights about their health. Nature 568,44644 9 (2019).
166. Mueller, S., Thompson, P. & Luders E., for The Enigma Transgender Persons
Working Group. An initiative to combine MRI data in transgender persons to
examine structural brain differences: preliminary ndings from the ENIGMA
transgender persons working group. in Abstract Presented at the 3rd biennial
European Professional Association for Transgender Health Conference Apr
1113 (Rome, Italy, 2019).
167. Harding, I. et al. The spatial distribution of cerebellar and brainstem structural
abnormalities in SCA1, 2, 3, and 6 from the ENIGMA-Ataxia consortium. in
International Ataxia Research Conference November (2019).
168. Harding, I. et al. Brain atrophy in Friedreich ataxia preferentially manifests in
cerebellar and cerebral mo tor areas: results from the ENIGMA-Ataxia con-
sortium. in International Ataxia Research Conference November (2019).
169. Hatton, S. et al. White matter abnormalities across epilepsy syndromes: Large-
scaleanalysisfrom21centersworldwide. (2019) (in preparation).
170. Acheson, A. et al. Reproducibility of tract-based white matter microstructural
measures using the ENIGMA-DTI protocol. Brain Behav. 7, e00615 (2017).
171. Kochunov, P. et al. Heritability of fractional anisotropy in human white matter:
a comparison of Human Connectome Project and ENIGMA-DTI data. Neu-
roImage 111,300311 (2015).
172. Kochunov, P. et al. Multi-site study of additive genetic effects on fractional
anisotropy of cereb ral white matter: com paring meta a nd megaanalytical
approaches for data pooling. NeuroImage 95, 13615 0 (2014).
173. Fortin, J. P. et al. Harmonization of multi-site diffusion tensor imaging data.
NeuroImage 161,149170 (2017).
174. Zhu, A. H., Moyer, D. C., Nir, T. M., Thompson, P. M. & Jahanshad, N. Chal-
lenges and opportunities in diffusion MRI data harmonization. in Invited
Review Paper for the MICCAI CDMRI Workshop (Granada, Spain, 2018).
175. Gutman, B. A. et al. Medial demons registration localizes the degree of
genetic inuence over subcortical shape variability: An N = 1480 meta-
analysis. in Biomedical Imaging (ISBI), 2015 IEEE 12th International Symposium
14021406(IEEE, 2015).
176. Gutman, B. et al. A Meta-Analysis of Deep Brain Structural Shape and
Asymmetry Abnormalities in 2,833 Individuals with Schizophrenia Compared
to 3,929 Healthy Volunteers via the ENIGMA Consortium. Mol. Psychiatry
(2019) (submitted).
177. Lin, A. et al. Mapping 22q11.2 gene dosage effects on brain morphometry.
J.
Neurosc. 37,618399 (2017).
178. Ching, C. R. K. et al. Mapping subcortical brain alterations in 22q11.2 deletion
syndrome: Effects of delet ion size and convergenc e with idiopathic neu-
ropsychiatric illness. Am. J. Psychiatr. (2019) (in press).
179. Laansma, M. et al. Bidirectional Changes in Subcortical Shape Derived Local
Thickness Measures: an ENIGMA-Parkinsons Disease Mega-Analysis
(N=1649), in Abstract Presented at ADPD 2020 April 25 (Vienna, 2020).
180. Zeng, L.-L. et al. Machine learning on vertex-wise brain shape metrics
improves the diagnostic classication of bipolar disorders. SOBP (2020) (to be
submitted).
181. Jasper, H. H. The ten-twenty electrode system of the international federation.
Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 10,371375 (1958).
182. Oostenveld, R. & Praamstra, P. The ve percent electrode system for high-
resolution EEG and ERP measurements. Clin. Neurophysiol. 112,7139 (2001).
183. Linkenkaer-Hansen, K. et al. Genetic contributions to long-range temporal
correlations in ongoing oscillations. J. Neurosci. 27,138829(2007).
184. Smit,D.J.A.etal.Endophenotypes in a dynamically connected brain. Behav.
Genet. 40, 167177 (2010).
185. Stam, C. J. et al. The trees and the forest: characterization of complex brain
networks with minimum spanning trees. Int J. Psychophysiol. 92,12938
(2014).
186. Arns, M., Conners, C. K. & Kraemer, H. C. A decade of EEG Theta/Beta Ratio
Research in ADHD: a meta-analysis. J. Atten. Disord. 17,37483 (2013).
187. Smit, D. J. A., Posthuma, D., Boomsma, D. I. & de Geus, E. J. C. Heritability of
background EEG across the power spectrum. Psychophysiol. 42,691697
(2005).
188. Esteban, O. et al. fMRIPrep: a robust preprocessing pipeline for functional MRI.
Nat. Methods 16,111116 (2019).
189. Jahanshad, N. et al. Multi-site meta-analysis of morphometry. IEEE/ACM Trans.
Computational Biol. Bioinforma. 16, 15081 514 (2019).
190. Jahanshad, N. et al. Supporting the Consortium for Enhancing NeuroImaging
Genetics through Meta-Analysis (ENIGMA) through the Organic Data Science
Framework. Presented at the Conference on Science of Te am Science (SciTS)
(Bethesda, MD, June 2015).
191. Jang, M. H. et al. Towards Aut omatic Generation of Portions of Scienti
c
Papers for Large Multi-Institutional Collaborations Based on Semantic
Metadata. Proceedings of the Workshop on Enabling Open Semantic Science,
Co-located with the Sixteenth International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC)
(Vienna, Austria, October 2017).
192. Garijo, D. et al. Towards Automated Hypothesis Testing in Neuroscience.
Presented at the Fifth International Workshop on Data Management and
Analytics for Medicine and Healthcare, VLDB 2019 (Los Angeles, CA, 2019).
193. Gil, Y. et al. Automated hypothesis testing with large scienticdatareposi-
tories. In Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Conference on Advances in Cognitive
Systems (ACS) (2016).
194. Gundersen, O. E., Gil, Y . & Aha, D. W. On reproducible A I: towards re pro-
ducible research, open science, and digital scholarship in AI Publications. AI
Mag. 39,5668 (2018).
195. Ming, J. et al. COINSTAC: decentralizing the future of brain imaging analysis.
F1000Res 2017 6, 1512 (2017).
196. Lam, P., Zhu, A., Salminen, L., Jahanshad, N. & Thompson, P. M. Predicting
Brain Age from Structural MRI using Deep Learning and Information Theo-
retic Divergence Measures. Accepted at ISBI 2020 (Iowa City, IA, 2020).
197. Shatokhina, N. et al. ENIGMA-Vis: A Portal to View Genetic Effects on t he
Human Brain Based on Large-Scale GWAS. in Abstract Presented at the 24th
Organizati on of Human Brain Mapping Annual Meeting Jun 1721 (Singapore,
2018).
198. Zhang, G. et al. ENIGMA-Viewer : interactive visualization strategies for con-
veying effect sizes in meta-analysis. BMC Bioinforma. 18, 253 (2017).
Thompson et al. Translational Psychiatry Page 23 of 26
UNCORRECTED PROOF
199. Barabási, A.-L., Ravasz, E. & Oltvai, Z. in (eds Pastor-Satorras, R., Rubi, M. & Diaz-
Guilera, A.) 4665 (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2003). https://doi.org/10.10 07/
978-3-540-44943-0_ 4
200. Slaughter, A. M. The Chessboard and the Web: Strategies of Connection in a
Networked World (pp. 304. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 2017).
201. Nir, T . M. et al. Effects of diffus ion MRI model and harmonizati on on the
consistency of ndings in an international multi-cohort HIV neuroimaging
study. 2018 MICCAI Workshop on Computational Diffusion MR I (CDMRI) (full
peer-reviewed paper) (Granada, Spain, 2018).
Author details
Paul M. Thompson
1
, Neda Jahanshad
1
, Christopher R. K. Ching
1
,LaurenE.Salminen
1
, Sophia I. Thomopoulos
1
,
Joanna Bright
1
, Bernhard T. Baune
2,3,4
, Sara Bertolín
5
, Janita Bralten
6,7
, Willem B. Bruin
8
, Robin Bülow
9
, Jian Chen
10
,
Yann Chye
11
,UdoDannlowski
2
,CarolienG.F.deKovel
12,13
, Gary Donohoe
14
,LisaT.Eyler
15,16
,StephenV.Faraone
17
,
Pauline Favre
18,19
, Courtney A. Filippi
20
,ThomasFrodl
21,22,23
, Daniel Garijo
24
,YolandaGil
24,25
,HansJ.Grabe
26,27
,
Katrina L. Grasby
28
,TomasHajek
29,30
, Laura K. M. Han
31
,SeanN.Hatton
32,33
, Kevin Hilbert
34
, Tiffany C. Ho
35,36
,
Laurena Holleran
14
,GeorgHomuth
37
,NorbertHosten
9
, Josselin Houenou
18,19,38
, Iliyan Ivanov
39
, Tianye Jia
40,41,42
,
Sinead Kelly
43,44
, Marieke Klein
6,7,45
,JunSooKwon
46,47
, Max A. Laansma
48
, Jeanne Leerssen
49
, Ulrike Lueken
34
,
Abraham Nunes
29,50
,JosephO Neill
51
, Nils Opel
2
, Fabrizio Piras
52
, Federica Piras
52
, Merel C. Postema
13
, Elena Pozzi
53,54
,
Natalia Shatokhina
1
, Carles Soriano-Mas
5,55,56
, Gianfranco Spalletta
52,57
,DaqiangSun
58,59
, Alexander Teumer
60
,
Amanda K. Tilot
1
, Leonardo Tozzi
35
, Celia van der Merwe
61,62
,EusJ.W.VanSomeren
49,63
,GuidoA.vanWingen
8
,
Henry Völzke
60,64
,EstherWalton
65
,LeiWang
66,67
, Anderson M. Winkler
20
, Katharina Wittfeld
26,27
,MargaretJ.Wright
68,69
,
Je-Yeon Yun
70,71
, Guohao Zhang
72
, Yanli Zhang-James
17,73
,BhimM.Adhikari
74
, Ingrid Agartz
75,76,77
, Moji Aghajani
78,79
,
André Aleman
80
, Robert R. Althoff
81
,AndreAltmann
82
, Ole A. Andreassen
75,83
,DavidA.Baron
84
,
Brenda L. Bartnik-Olson
85
, Janna Marie Bas-Hoogendam
86,87,88
, Arielle R. Baskin-Sommers
89
, Carrie E. Bearden
58,90
,
Laura A. Berner
15
, Premika S. W. Boedhoe
78
,RachelM.Brouwer
45
, Jan K. Buitelaar
91
, Karen Caeyenberghs
92
,
CharlotteA.M.Cecil
93,94
, Ronald A. Cohen
95,96
,JamesH.Cole
97,98
,PatriciaJ.Conrod
99
,StephaneA.DeBrito
100
,
Sonja M. C. de Zwarte
45
, Emily L. Dennis
1,101,102
, Sylvane Desrivieres
103
, Danai Dima
104,105
, Stefan Ehrlich
106
,
Carrie Esopenko
107
, Graeme Fairchild
65
, Simon E. Fisher
7,13
, Jean-Paul Fouche
108,109
,ClydeFrancks
7,13
,
Sophia Frangou
110,111
, Barbara Franke
6,7,112
, Hugh P. Garavan
113
,DavidC.Glahn
114,115
,NynkeA.Groenewold
108
,
Tiril P. Gurholt
75
,BorisA.Gutman
116,117
,TimHahn
118
, Ian H. Harding
119
, Dennis Hernaus
120
,DerrekP.Hibar
121
,
Frank G. Hillary
122,123
, Martine Hoogman
6,7
, Hilleke E. Hulshoff Pol
45
, Maria Jalbrzikowski
124
, George A. Karkashadze
125
,
Eduard T. Klapwijk
86,88
, Rebecca C. Knickmeyer
126,127,128
, Peter Kochunov
74
,IngaK.Koerte
102,129
, Xiang-Zhen Kong
13
,
Sook-Lei Liew
130,131
, Alexander P. Lin
132,133
,MarkW.Logue
134,135,136
, Eileen Luders
137,138
, Fabio Macciardi
139
,
Scott Mackey
113
,AndrewR.Mayer
140
, Carrie R. McDonald
32,141
, Agnes B. McMahon
1,142
, Sarah E. Medland
28
,
Gemma Modinos
143
,RajendraA.Morey
144,145
, Sven C. Mueller
146,147
, Pratik Mukherjee
148
,
Leyla Namazova-Baranova
149,150
, Talia M. Nir
1
,AlexanderOlsen
151,152
, Peristera Paschou
153
, Daniel S. Pine
154
,
Fabrizio Pizzagalli
1
,MiguelE.Rentería
155
, Jonathan D. Rohrer
156
, Philipp G. Sämann
157
,LianneSchmaal
54,158
,
Gunter Schumann
42,159
,MarkS.Shiroishi
1,160
, Sanjay M. Sisodiya
161,162
,DirkJ.A.Smit
8
, Ida E. Sønderby
75
,DanJ.Stein
163
,
Jason L. Stein
164
, Masoud Tahmasian
165
,DavidF.Tate
166,167
, Jessica A. Turner
168
, Odile A. van den Heuvel
48,78
,
NicJ.A.vanderWee
87,88
, Ysbrand D. van der Werf
48
,TheoG.M.vanErp
169,170
, Neeltje E. M. van Haren
45,93
,
Daan van Rooij
171
, Laura S. van Velzen
54,158
, Ilya M. Veer
172
,DickJ.Veltman
78
, Julio E. Villalon-Reina
1
,HenrikWalter
172
,
Christopher D. Whelan
173,174
, Elisabeth A. Wilde
101,175,176
, Mojtaba Zarei
165
and Vladimir Zelman
177,178
,fortheENIGMA
Consortium
1
Imaging Genetics Center, Mark and Mary Stevens Neuroimaging and Informatics Institute, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Marina del
Rey, CA, USA.
2
Department of Psychiatry, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
3
Department of Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC,
Australia.
4
The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
5
Department of Psychiatry, Bellvitge
University Hospital, Bellvitge Biomed ical Research Institute-IDIBELL, Barcelona, Spain.
6
Department of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center,
Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
7
Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
8
Department of Psychiatry,
Thompson et al. Translational Psychiatry Page 24 of 26
UNCORRECTED PROOF
Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
9
Institute for Diagnostic Radiology and Neuroradiology,
University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.
10
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
11
Turner
Institute for Brain and Mental Health, School of Psychological Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.
12
Biometris Wageningen University and Research,
Wageningen, The Netherlands.
13
Language & Genetics Department, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
14
The Center for
Neuroimaging and Cognitive Genomics, School of Psychology, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland.
15
Department of Psychiatry, University of California,
San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
16
Desert-Pacic Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center, VA San Diego Healthcare System, San Diego, CA, USA.
17
Departments of Psychiatry and of Neuroscience and Physiology, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY, USA.
18
INSERM Unit 955 Team 15 Translational
Psychiatry, Créteil, France.
19
NeuroSpin, UNIACT Lab, Psychiatry Team, CEA Saclay, Gif-Sur-Yvette, France.
20
National Institute of Mental Health, National of Health,
Bethesda, MD, USA.
21
Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany.
22
Department of Psychiatry,
Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
23
German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Magdeburg, Germany.
24
Information Sciences Institute, University
of Southern California, Marina del Rey, CA, USA.
25
Department of Computer Science, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
26
Department of
Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.
27
German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Site Rostock/
Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.
28
Psychiatric Genetics, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
29
Department of Psychiatry, Dalhousie
University, Halifax, NS, Canada.
30
National Institute of Mental Health, Klecany, Czech Republic.
31
Department of Psychiatry, Amsterdam University Medical Centers,
VU University Medical Center, GGZ inGeest, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
32
Center for Multimodal Imaging and Genetics, University of
California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
33
Brain and Mind Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
34
Department of Psychology, Humboldt-Universität zu
Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
35
Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
36
Department of Psychiatry & Weill Institute for
Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
37
Interfaculty Institute for Genetics and Functi onal Genomics, University Medicine
Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.
38
APHP, Mondor University Hospitals, School of Medicine, DMU Impact, Psychiatry Department, Créteil, France.
39
Icahn School of
Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
40
Institute of Science and Technology for Brain-Inspired Intelligence, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
41
MOE Key
Laboratory of Computational Neuroscience and Brain-Inspired Intelligence, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
42
Centre for Population Neuroscience and Precision
Medicine (PONS), MRC SGDP Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, Kings College London, London, UK.
43
Department of Psychiatry, Beth Israel
Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
44
Department of Psychiatry, Brigham and Womens Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
45
Department
of Psychiatry, UMC Brain Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
46
Department of Psychiatry, Seoul National
University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
47
Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Seoul National University College of Natural Sciences,
Seoul, Republic of Korea.
48
Department of Anatomy & Neurosciences, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands.
49
Department of Sleep and Cognition, Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
50
Faculty of Computer Science,
Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.
51
Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
52
Laboratory of
Neuropsychiatry, IRCCS Santa Lucia Foundation, Rome, Italy.
53
Melbourne Neuropsychiatry Centre, Department of Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne,
Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
54
Orygen, The National Centre of Excellence in Youth Mental Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
55
CIBERSAM-G17, Madrid, Spain.
56
Department of Psychobiology and Methodology in Health Sciences, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
57
Department of Psychiatry and
Behavioral Sciences, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
58
Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and
Human Behavior, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
59
Department of Mental Health, Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare
System, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
60
Institute for Community Medicine, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.
61
Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research,
The Broad Institute, Cambridge, MA, USA.
62
Analytic and Translational Genetics Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
63
Psychiatry and Integrative
Neurophysiology, VU University, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
64
German Centre for Cardiovascular Research, Partner Site Greifswald, Greifswald,
Germany.
65
Department of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, UK.
66
Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine,
Chicago, IL, USA.
67
Radiology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
68
Queensland Brain Institute, University of Queensland,
Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
69
Centre for Advanced Imaging, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
70
Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of
Korea.
71
Yeongeon Student Support Center, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
72
Department of Computer Science and
Electrical Engineering, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, MD, USA.
73
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, SUNY Upstate Medical University,
Syracuse, NY, USA.
74
Department of Psychiatry, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
75
Norwegian Centre for Mental Disorders Research
(NORMENT), Division of Mental Health and Addiction, Oslo University Hospital & Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
76
Department of
Clinical Neuroscience, Centre for Psychiatric Research, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
77
Department of Psychiatric Research, Diakonhjemmet Hospital,
Oslo, Norway.
78
Department of Psychiatry, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
79
Department
of Research & Innovation, GGZ InGeest, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
80
University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The
Netherlands.
81
Psychiatry, Pediatrics, and Psychological Sciences, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA.
82
Centre for Medical Image Computing (CMIC),
Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London, UK.
83
Department of Mental Health and Addiction, Oslo
University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
84
Provost and Senior Vice President, Western University of Health Sciences, Pomona, CA, USA.
85
Department of Radiology, Loma
Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, CA, USA.
86
Institute of Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.
87
Department of Psychiatry, Leiden
University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
88
Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition, Leiden, The Netherlands.
89
Department of Psychology, Yale
University, New Haven, CT, USA.
90
Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
91
Department of Cognitive Neuroscience, Donders
Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
92
Cognitive Neuroscience Unit, School of Psychology,
Deakin University, Burwood, VIC, Australia.
93
Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry/Psychology, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
94
Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
95
Center for Cognitive Aging and Memory, University of Florida, Gainesville,
FL, USA.
96
Clinical and Health Psychology, Gainesville, FL, USA.
97
Centre for Medical Image Computing (CMIC), Department of Computer Science, University College
London, London, UK.
98
Dementia Research Centre, Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK.
99
Universite de Montreal, Centre de Recherche
CHU Ste-Justine, Montreal, QC, Canada.
100
School of Psychology and Centre for Human Brain Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
101
Department of
Neurology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
102
Psychiatry Neuroimaging Laboratory, Brigham & Womens Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA,
USA.
103
Social, Genetic & Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, Kings College London, London, UK.
104
Department
of Neuroimaging, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, Kings College London, London, UK.
105
Department of Neuroimaging, Institute of Psychology,
Psychiatry and Neurosciences, Kings College London, London, UK.
106
Division of Psychological and Social Medicine and Developmental Neurosciences, Faculty of
Medicine, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
107
School of Health Professions, Rutgers Biomedical Health Sciences, Newark, NJ, USA.
108
Department of Psychiatry and
Mental Health, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
109
SU/UCT MRC Unit on Risk & Resilience in Mental Disorders, University of Stellenbosch,
Stellenbosch, South Africa.
110
Department of Psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
111
University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
Canada.
112
Department of Psychiatry, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
113
Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont,
Burlington, VT, USA.
114
Department of Psychiatry, Boston Childrens Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
115
Olin Neuropsychiatric Research
Center, Institute of Living, Hartford, CT, USA.
116
Biomedical Engineering, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL, USA.
117
Institute for Information Transmission
Problems, Kharkevich Institute, Moscow, Russian Federation.
118
Institute of Translational Psychiatry, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
119
Turner Institute for
Brain and Mental Health & School of Psychological Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
120
Department of Psychiatry & Neuropsychology, School
for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
121
Genentech, Inc., South San Francisco, CA, USA.
122
Department of
Thompson et al. Translational Psychiatry Page 25 of 26
UNCORRECTED PROOF
Psychology, Penn State University, University Park, PA, USA.
123
Social Life and Engineering Sciences Imaging Center, University Park, PA, USA.
124
Department of
Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
125
Central Clinical Hospital of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russian Federation.
126
Department of Pediatrics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA.
127
Institute for Quantitative Health Science and Engineering, East Lansing, MI, USA.
128
Department of Psychiatry, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
129
CBRAIN, Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
Psychosomatics, and Psychotherapy, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany.
130
Stevens Neuroimaging and Informatics Institute, Keck School
of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
131
Chan Division of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
132
Center for Clinical Spectroscopy, Brigham and Womens Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
133
Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
134
National Center for PTSD at
Boston VA Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA.
135
Department of Psychiatry, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
136
Biomedical Genetics,
Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
137
School of Psychology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
138
Laboratory of Neuro Imaging,
Mark and Mary Stevens Neuroimaging and Informatics Institute, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
139
Department of
Psychiatry and Human Behavior, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA.
140
Mind Research Network, Albuquerque, NM, USA.
141
Psychiatry, San Diego, CA,
USA.
142
The Kavli Foundation, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
143
Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, Kings College London,
London, UK.
144
Department of Psychiatry, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
145
Mental Illness Research Education and Clinical Center, Durham
VA Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
146
Experimental Clinical & Health Psychology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
147
Department of Personality, Psychological
Assessment and Treatment, University of Deusto, Bilbao, Spain.
148
Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, San Francisco, CA, USA.
149
Department of Pediatrics (Head),
Russian National Research Medical University MoH RF, Moscow, Russian Federation.
150
Center of Pediatrics, Central Clinical Hospital, MoS High Education RF,
Moscow, Russian Federation.
151
Department of Psychology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
152
Department of Physical
Medicine and Rehabilitation, St. Olavs Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.
153
Biological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN,
USA.
154
National Institute of Mental Health Intramural Research Program, Bethesda, MD, USA.
155
Department of Genetics and Computational Biology, QIMR
Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
156
Department of Neurodegenerative Disease, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, London,
UK.
157
Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry, Munich, Germany.
158
Centre for Youth Mental Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
159
Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Charite, Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany.
160
Department of Radiology, Keck School of Medicine of USC,
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
161
Department of Clinical and Experimental Epilepsy , University College London, London, UK.
162
Chalfont
Centre for Epilepsy, Chalfont St Peter, UK.
163
Department of Psychiatry & Neuroscience Institute, SA MRC Unit on Risk & Resilience in Mental Disorders, Cape Town,
South Africa.
164
Department of Genetics & UNC Neuroscience Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
165
Institute of Medical
Science and Technology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, I. R., Iran.
166
Department of Neurology, TBI and Concussion Center, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
167
Missouri
Institute of Mental Health, Berkeley, MO, USA.
168
Psychology Department & Neuroscience Institute, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
169
Clinical
Translational Neuroscience Laboratory, Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA.
170
Center for the
Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA.
171
Donders Centre for Cognitive Neuroimaging, Radboud University Medical
Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
172
Division of Mind and Brain Research, Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy CCM, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin,
corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
173
Molecular and Cellular Therapeutics,
Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland.
174
Research and Early Development, Biogen Inc, Cambridge, MA, USA.
175
VA Salt Lake City Healthcare System,
Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
176
Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
177
Keck School of Medicine,
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
178
Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology, Moscow, Russian Federation
Thompson et al. Translational Psychiatry Page 26 of 26
UNCORRECTED PROOF
AOP
QUERY FORM
TRANSLPSYCHIATRY
Manuscript ID [Art. Id: 705]
Author
Editor
Publisher
Journal: TRANSLPSYCHIATRY
Author :- The following que ries have arisen during the editing of your manuscript. Please answer by making
the requisite corrections directly in the e.proofing tool rather than marking them up on the PDF. This will
ensure that your corrections are incorporated accurately and that your paper is published as quickly as
possible.
Query
No.
Description Author’s Response
AQ1 Please check your article carefully, coordinate with any co-authors and enter all
nal edits clearly in the eproof, remembering to save frequently. Once
corrections are submitted, we cannot routinely make further changes to the
article.
AQ2 Note that the eproof should be amended in only one browser window at any one
time; otherwise changes will be overwritten.
AQ3 Author surnames have been highlighted. Please check these carefully and adjust
if the rst name or surname is marked up incorrectly. Note that changes here will
affect indexing of your article in public repositories such as PubMed. Also,
carefully check the spelling and numbering of all author names and afliations,
and the corresponding email address(es).
AQ4 You cannot alter accepted Supplementary Information les except for critical
changes to scientic content. If you do resupply any les, please also provide a
brief (but complete) list of changes. If these are not considered scientic changes,
any altered Supplementary les will not be used, only the originally accepted
version will be published.
UNCORRECTED PROOF
AOP
QUERY FORM
TRANSLPSYCHIATRY
Manuscript ID [Art. Id: 705]
Author
Editor
Publisher
Journal: TRANSLPSYCHIATRY
Author :- The following que ries have arisen during the editing of your manuscript. Please answer by making
the requisite corrections directly in the e.proofing tool rather than marking them up on the PDF. This will
ensure that your corrections are incorporated accurately and that your paper is published as quickly as
possible.
Query
No.
Description Author’s Response
AQ5 Villalon-Reina, Mol Psychiatr, 2019, Hibar, Mol Psychiatr, 2017, Fouche, OHBM,
2015, Nir, CNS, 2015, Renteria, Transl Psychiat, 2017, Boedhoe, Front
Neuroinform, 2019, Saemann, OHBM, 2018, Guadalupe, 2019 (in press), van
Erp, Mol Psychiatr, 2015, Hibar, Nature Commun, 2017; Adams, Nature
Neurosci, 2016, Guadalupe, BIB, 2017, Dima et al., 2015; Frangou et al., 2019 (in
prep) are not listed in reference list. Please provide complete publication details
to add in reference list, else delete citation from text.
AQ6 As per style, footnote 1 and 2 has been moved to the main text Please check.
AQ7 Since the references were not cited in numerical order, they have been
renumbered in the order of appearance. Please check.
AQ8 Original Reference [175] is a duplicate of [123] and hence the repeated version
has been deleted. Please check.
AQ9 Original References 170179 and 181202 were not originally cited in text.
Please conrm that the citation of this reference after the sentence but working
together, the whole vast world of science is within our reach. (Aristotle, 350
BCE) is ok.
AQ10 Please provide vol. no. and page range for references 11 and 12 if available.
AQ11 If ref. 13 (preprint) has now been published in nal peer-reviewed form, please
update the reference details if appropriate.
UNCORRECTED PROOF
AOP
QUERY FORM
TRANSLPSYCHIATRY
Manuscript ID [Art. Id: 705]
Author
Editor
Publisher
Journal: TRANSLPSYCHIATRY
Author :- The following que ries have arisen during the editing of your manuscript. Please answer by making
the requisite corrections directly in the e.proofing tool rather than marking them up on the PDF. This will
ensure that your corrections are incorporated accurately and that your paper is published as quickly as
possible.
Query
No.
Description Author’s Response
AQ12 Please provide vol. no, page range or article id for reference 14, 17.
AQ13 Please update reference 31 if further details available.
AQ14 Please update references 55, 57. 67, 71, 73, 76, 77, 78, 79, 83, 90, 118, 119 if the
details available.
AQ15 If ref. 80 (preprint) has now been published in nal peer-reviewed form, please
update the reference details if appropriate.
AQ16 If ref. 89 (preprint) has now been published in nal peer-reviewed form, please
update the reference details if appropriate.
AQ17 If ref. 114 (preprint) has now been published in nal peer-reviewed form, please
update the reference details if appropriate.
AQ18 If ref. 120, 121 (preprint) has now been published in nal peer-reviewed form,
please update the reference details if appropriate.
AQ19 If ref. 124 (preprint) has now been published in nal peer-reviewed form, please
update the reference details if appropriate.
AQ20 Please provide vol. no. for reference 135.
UNCORRECTED PROOF
AOP
QUERY FORM
TRANSLPSYCHIATRY
Manuscript ID [Art. Id: 705]
Author
Editor
Publisher
Journal: TRANSLPSYCHIATRY
Author :- The following que ries have arisen during the editing of your manuscript. Please answer by making
the requisite corrections directly in the e.proofing tool rather than marking them up on the PDF. This will
ensure that your corrections are incorporated accurately and that your paper is published as quickly as
possible.
Query
No.
Description Author’s Response
AQ21 If ref. 137 (preprint) has now been published in nal peer-reviewed form, please
update the reference details if appropriate.
AQ22 Please provide vol. no. for reference 161.